Talk:British Airways Flight 009

Landing time
Please add the time of the landing in Jakarta to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:2A8:8500:86:8418:F125:7968:BE6B (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of weather category
I'd consider volcanic ash a "weather" phenomenon, at least so far as aviation is concerned. After all, you hear about volcanic ash when you are receiving your weather briefing. And it sounds like it was the volcanic ash that caused the incident. Why do you (Scott) feel that isn't an appropriate category? —Cleared as filed. 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, volcanic ash is included in weather briefings, but that's more because there nowhere else to put it, rather than because it is weather. If the category was accidents caused by atmospheric conditions or something similar, then fine, but ash is hardly bad weather. --Scott Wilson 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weather is typically defined as something like "the specific condition of the atmosphere at a particular time and place". It usually includes visibility, smog, and dust storms where these are significant conditions.  Pyroclastic ash clouds are a significant atmospheric condition and would seem to qualify as weather.  We don't often think of them that way perhaps, but presumably only because they are uncommon in our experience. -R. S. Shaw 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

KLM is in fact Royal Dutch Airlines, not Royal Dutch Airways as it is mentioned here - Aishah Bowron 18:51, 21 February 2006

not original material
some of this text is copied verbatim from Miken32 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may look like that (as I initially thought), but the evidence is that the IFALPA bulletin copied from this Wikipedia article without attribution (and in violation of terms of the GFDL). This 8 Jan 2006 version has the common text, whereas the IFALPA bulletin is dated 26 January 2006.  (The text probably goes back almost to the original article version of Aug 2005.) Amusing that the bulletin says "All reprints must credit IFALPA".  The passages I found resembling the article are:
 * Diverting to Jakarta, and despite reports of good visibility, the crew found it hard to see anything, and had to make the approach almost entirely on instruments, although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen undamaged by abrasion from the ash. After landing, the crew then found it impossible to taxi, as glare from apron floodlights made the windscreen opaque.
 * Although the airspace around Mount Galunggung was closed temporarily after the incident, it reopened and it was only after a Singapore Airlines B-747 was forced to shut down three of its engines while flying through the same area nineteen days later that Indonesian authorities closed the airspace permanently and re-routed airways to avoid the area. Subsequently, a watch was set up to monitor clouds of ash.
 * In a nearly identical incident in 1989, a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Anchorage, Alaska, flew into the plume of the erupting Mount Redoubt, causing all four engines to fail due to compressor stall. Once the flight cleared the ash cloud it was able to restart each engine and then made a safe landing at Anchorage, though, like the BA flight mentioned above, the aircraft was substantially damaged.
 * I had added a reference entry for the IFALPA bulletin, but will now remove it. -R. S. Shaw 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought some of the bulletin sounded familiar! Although you've only my word for it, I'd never heard of IFALPA at that point, let alone seen the bulletin: the initial revision was mainly me paraphrasing Betty Tootell's book. --Scott Wilson 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Time zones
some of the times are in gmt. should they not be in either utc or jakarta time? or is it gmt because the aircraft is registered in britain?


 * Firstly, GMT is the same as UTC (give or take a few fractions of a second). In the initial version, I used GMT because that's what my primary source (Tootell) used. Secondly, in aviation in general, because aircraft cross timezones so frequently and with such ease, UTC/GMT is used (even for flights staying in one timezone) to avoid any possibility of confusion - local times are generally only for passengers. --Scott Wilson 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Height Units
This article has fallen foul of the metrification zealots (which would usually include me, but not for aviation), leading to such absurd statements as the crew deciding to try to stay above "3,650 metres (11,980 ft)". It's an absolute certainty that the original source would have said 12,000 feet, the calibrated figure on the altimeter, so Wikipedia has now been infected with statements which are factually incorrect.

I'd be perfectly happy with the primary figure always being in metres, even though, technically, it's inappropriate for aviation, as long as the accompanying measurement in feet hasn't been subject to a double conversion and rounding, rendering it incorrect.

I'm not going to fix this myself, because to do a proper job it would mean veryifying figures from the original sources. I'm just going to complain about it.Steve Graham (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That might have been my doing - sorry about that. In the original text metrical and imperial units were both included in the text, but some numbers were clearly inconsistent with eachother. Therefore I have consistently implemented the convert-template. In inputting the numbers to the template I worked left to right. In distances that didn't cause problems but in heights it would have been better to use feet as primary numbers. Using the original figures (as they were before my edit) I have done so now.
 * By the way - what (if any) is the reason you put this section in the middle of the talk page and not at its bottom?
 * Richard 07:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain on flight deck?
Some time ago (Feb 25 in my time zone), someone made an edit that looks like vandalism (and no one acted on it until just now, when I reverted it, so it looks like no one noticed). However, if I remember the Air Crash Investigations episode correctly, they were actually removing a false statement. Can someone more familiar with this please check it? Brian Jason Drake 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC) [edited to add italics on the series title - Brian Jason Drake 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]


 * I've consulted the sources available to me, including Job's Air Disaster vol. 2 and the Air Safety Week June 28, 2004 article (both substantial), and the Daily Mail article, and none of them indicate that Moody left the flight deck after the visual symptoms had begun. He had returned before any of the engine failures and didn't leave.  This is also my memory from reading Tootell's book two years ago.
 * The sentence in question was added last Sept by a one-day anon editor. The same edit removed text saying that Moody had told Greaves to declare the emergency, but the sources indicate that he did do that.  Taking the anon's edits all together, they seem to have a bit of anti-Captain bias, sort of sour grapes flavor.  From other accounts, the captain's time away from the flight deck was nonexistant during the period the aircraft was having engine trouble.
 * I'm going to again remove the sentence. Whether the original removal by User:Eric Moody was actually by Captain Moody or not we don't know, but I don't dismiss the possibility. -R. S. Shaw 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't discount the possibility either, but I consider it extremely unlikely and I can understand if anybody does discount the possibility without thinking to do anything else. Brian Jason Drake 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ascent over mountain
After restarting all the engines, the aircraft ascended back into the cloud to cross the mountain, causing one engine to fail again. If ascent is not necessary to cross the mountain, what is it necessary for? The introduction gives no clues. Brian Jason Drake 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The intro gives no clues because no sources explain. Job's Air Disaster says that the copilot radioed " 'All four engines running - level at 12,000.' On the captain's instruction, he added, 'Request higher level.' " with no explanation of the reason for the request.
 * I would speculate that the captain simply wanted more altitude in case of further engine flame-outs, since that would give them more time to deal with a new problem before descent from lack of power had critical consequences. Remember they had just gone through 20 harrowing minutes of powerless descent with their high starting altitude giving them precious time.  They didn't know there was an ash cloud to reenter and that ascending was dangerous.  The lowest safe altitude to cross the mountains was 11,500 ft, so it was adequate to be at 12,000, at which they started the ascent, and to which they quickly returned for the crossing.
 * But Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, so such guesses shouldn't be in the article. -R. S. Shaw 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have Betty Toottell's book on the incident in front of me. On pg 135 (Pan books 1985 edition) it confirms Job's account stated above, and adds the following statement after Jakarta 'cleared to 150': "Immediately Captain Moody put the aircraft into a climb back towards 15,000 ft, only too well aware of the mountains beneath, and wanting to have a reserve margin for clearance over them." So the supposed reason for the climb can be linked to a references, which I'll do when I get a chance. --Zamphuor 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Landing and Taxi
I just recently watched a documentary on the incident. It cited that the cause for the opaque windshield was because of the blasting of the sand particles (sand blasting) against the windscreen, not because of light glare. Can anyone confirm this? --Zachdouglas 21.16, 20 April 2007

It was both. The light reflecting off the sandblasted windscreen made it opaque, just like frosted glass. --Scott Wilson 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain engine 'searchlight' appearance
The article says: "Those looking out windows also noticed that the engines were unusually bright, as if they each had a searchlight in them, shining forward through the fan blades." That doesn't fit with St Elmo's fire which is a soft glow and not at all like that description. What is the explanation for that engine visual effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.45.165 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 April 2007 [moved by User:Scott Wilson 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know, though I don't think it was St Elmo's fire - if the article implies it was, it ought to be changed. I can't remember if Tootell gave an explanation in her book (my main source on this subject), or if it's still a mystery. --Scott Wilson 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The glow is indeed St. Elmo's fire and is experienced regularly by pilots who fly through weather conditions where Ice crystallization has occurred in the atmosphere. This is often seen as a glow extending forward from the nose of the airplane, or at the inlets of the engines. It varies in degree depending on the amount of friction causing elecrtostatic charge and ionizing the air around the sharp edges of the airplane.

Flight (article) name
Flight name was BA009 - see foot of article. Should this article be renamed?Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember when at LHR last time, this flight was called the BA Zero Zero Nine, over the tannoy and on the flight information screens, I agree that is should be renamed. Benny45boy (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, leading zeroes in flight numbers are not mandatory. 009 or 9 – either is correct. Actually, with four digits nowadays, you wouldn't say 0009, but just 9. – --Suaheli (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable reference
''Brennan, Zoe (27 January 2007). "The story of flight 009 and the words every passenger dreads...", Daily Mail.'' – This reference should be deleted. E. g. statements like "There were huge flames coming out of all four engines" are greatly exaggerated and the illustration is plain nonsense, too – this is Hollywood movie level. --Suaheli (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Something Wrong ... I fixed
In ACI, the captain did not say we are doing our ****dest to get them going again, he said: we are doing our ****edest to get it under control.

I fixed that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.30.53 (talk • contribs)


 * So on top of everything else, Moody could pronounce asterisks! What a guy. *g* Loganberry (Talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just was censoring the bad part of the word 66.30.30.53 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Incident Section
To me it seems like the incident section is written more like a story than an encyclopedia entry, does anyone else feel this way? Also, I noticed that it states that the oxygen masks didn't work, however, if I am correct (and stop me if I'm not) the oxygen masks work by pulling the mask which pulls a pin on a chemical oxygen generator. Therefore, they will always work, regardless of what is happening around them as they are independant. Furthermore, many passengers in aircraft incidents and accidents say that they are not working because the bag doesn't inflate while in fact they still are.

Just wondering what your thoughts on this issue are. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Incident section reads too much like a story, though I say this as one who's contributed to the section, if mainly to add quotes and citations. Personally I can do without The 747 had now become a glider. which does sound story-like, and I agree about the oxygen masks paragraph that follows the quote from Captain Moody - not only does the prose leave something to be desired, there's no citation for it. That para should go, unless it can be cited (in which I'd be happy to help tidy the wording). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm just a layman, but I've read some discussions on PPRuNe, and I've gathered there are two things that typically happen after a de-pressurisation: a) the pilot goes in a somewhat steep dive (1800m/min sounds about right) because the oxygen supply doesn't last all that long and b) some passengers think the oxygen masks don't work, even if they do, because the plastic bag on the mask doesn't inflate. (And never mind that it plainly says on that bag that it won't inflate.) Until I see some references I'll think the masks worked all right.--ospalh (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the section and post it in the article, then you can look at it and change it if you like. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the original. My version is in the article so change that if you want to.

The first sign of anything amiss occurred shortly after 13:40 UTC (20:40 Jakarta time) above the Indian Ocean, south of Java, when Senior First Officer Roger Greaves and Senior Engineer Officer Barry Townley-Freeman noticed an effect on the windscreen similar to St. Elmo's fire, as if it were being hit by tracer bullets. The phenomenon persisted after Captain Eric Moody, who had left the cockpit to use the lavatory, returned. Despite seeing nothing on the weather radar, they switched on engine anti-ice and the passenger seat belt signs as a precaution.

In the passenger cabin, smoke started gathering in the air. At first it was assumed to be cigarette smoke, but as it grew thicker, alarm spread. Those looking out windows also noticed that the engines were unusually bright, as if they each had a headlight in them, shining forward through the fan blades and producing a stroboscopic effect.

At approximately 13:42 UTC (20:42 Jakarta time), engine four surged and then flamed out. The first officer and flight engineer immediately performed the engine shutdown drill, shutting off fuel and arming fire extinguishers as the Captain added some rudder to counter the uneven thrust. The passengers also spotted long yellow glows coming out of the remaining engines. Less than a minute after the first engine failed, engine two surged and flamed out. Before the flight crew could begin the engine failure drills, engines one and three shut down almost simultaneously. The flight engineer exclaimed, "I don't believe it – all four engines have failed!"

The 747 had now become a glider. Since a 747 has a glide ratio of about 15, Captain Moody calculated that, from its flight level of 37000 ft, Flight 9 would be able to glide for 23 minutes and cover 91 nmi. At 13:44 UTC (20:44 Jakarta time), Moody told First Officer Greaves to declare an emergency to the local air traffic control authority, stating that all four engines had shut down, but Jakarta Area Control misunderstood the message, believing that only engine number four had shut down. It was only after a Garuda Indonesia flight relayed the message that it got through.

The loss of power was immediately obvious to the passengers, and they reacted to it in many different ways. Some became resigned, while others wrote notes to their loved ones, such as Charles Capewell's "Ma. In trouble. Plane going down. Will do best for boys. We love you. Sorry. Pa XXX" scrawled on the cover of his ticket wallet. Some passengers cried out that they were going to die, and still others attempted to calm down the more panicky ones.

On the flight deck the crew attempted to contact Jakarta for radar assistance, but could not be seen by Jakarta, despite their transponder being set to 7700, the international "general emergency" code. Due to the high Indonesian mountains, an altitude of at least 3,500 m (11,500 ft) was required to cross the coast safely. Captain Moody decided that, if the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude by the time they reached 3,650 m (12,000 ft), he would turn back out to sea and attempt to ditch. The crew began the engine restart drills, despite being well above the recommended maximum engine in-flight start envelope altitude of 8,500 m (28,000 ft), but they were unsuccessful.

Despite the lack of time, Captain Moody made an announcement that has been described as "a masterpiece of understatement":

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get it under control. I trust you are not in too much distress.

As pressure within the cabin fell, oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling - an automatic emergency measure to make up for the lack of air. But some did not work. Moody took drastic action: to prevent his passengers dying of oxygen starvation, he went into a nosedive, dropping 1,800 m in one minute, to an altitude where there was enough oxygen in the outside atmosphere to fill the cabin once more.

At 4,100 m (13,500 ft), the flight crew attempted one last engine restart procedure before turning for the ocean and the risky prospect of a ditching. Although there were guidelines for the procedure, no one had ever tried it in a 747 – nor have they since. Number four engine started, and at 13:56 UTC (20:56 Jakarta time), Captain Moody used its power to reduce the rate of descent. Shortly thereafter, engine three restarted, allowing him to climb slowly. Shortly after that, engines one and two restarted as well. The engines were able to restart because one generator and the batteries were still operative; generator or battery power is required for ignition of the engines. The crew were amazed at their change of fortune, and requested an increase in altitude to 4,500 m (15,000 feet) to clear the high mountains.

As the aircraft approached its target altitude, the tracer effect on the windscreen returned. Captain Moody throttled back, but it was too late: number two engine surged again, and had to be shut down. The crew immediately descended to 3,600 m (12,000 ft).

At last Flight 9 approached Jakarta. Despite reports of good visibility, the crew found it difficult to see anything through the windscreen, and had to make the approach almost entirely on instruments. They would have to fly the ILS. However, the glideslope was inactive, so they flew the localizer as the first officer monitored their DME. He then called out how high they should be relative to their distance from the runway, creating a virtual glide slope for them to follow. It was, in the words of Captain Moody, "a bit like negotiating one's way up a badger's arse". Although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen, the landing lights seemed to be inoperable. After landing, the flight crew then found it impossible to taxi, as glare from apron floodlights made the windscreen opaque, and City of Edinburgh had to wait for a tug to tow her in.

Reception in Jakarta
In All Four Engines Have Failed (hmmm, that redirects back here... should at least be to a section surely) the reception of the passengers in Jakarta is described. As some had Dutch passports, they could not enter the country. One of the crew (the purser possibly, just from memory) elected to stay with them in the airport terminal. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2010 Airspace Closure
I have added a section title (as above) to make this rather unusual event a bit more obvious. Right now no one is flying(by jet) in or out of England. Not too much coverage of Europe in Oz news. If this doesn't eruption clear soon the effects will likely flow on worldwide, to some extent.

Other parts of the Aftermath section need a bit of work ie the US Airways Flight 1549 Hudson ditching seems a bit out of place, though relevant as far as gliding a large aircraft. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the actual route for BA009?
According to Job's Air Disaster Volume 2, the route appeared to be LHR-BOM-KUL(now SZB)-PER-MEL-AKL. Can anyone confirm whether the flight stopped at Madras(Chennai)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N73713 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There was NO Madras stop. I worked for BA in Australia and although flight routings often changed, none ever went via Madras. The only via India route was LHR-BOM-PER-then to other AU/NZ destinations. I believe the Canadian National Geographic documentary got the routing wrong- they also got the colour scheme wrong too as the livery used on all their graphics was introduced after the BA9 incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.2.64 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it came from Mayday. I just rewatched the episode and it doesn't make any reference to the route beyond it starting in London and the incident occurring on the Kuala Lumpur to Perth leg (although in the interview, Betty Tootell, who was on the flight and wrote All Four Engines Have Failed!, mentions Bombay and Kuala Lumpur as stops, but not Madras). And also, the Madras stop has been on the page since it was created in 2005, but the Mayday episode on Flight 9 aired in 2007, so there may have been another source predating the creation of the Wikipedia page that listed Madras as a stopover. It could still be false, but that may be harder to determine than just by dismissing what was on a TV show. LearyTheSquid (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

notam (notice to airmen)
a notam was issued at the time of the eruption, was the crew advised on time of it? if so, did the crew acknowleged it? at the time i was dispatching a flight(jugoslav airlines) from singapore to sydney and diverted it south of jakarta to avoid the cloud...Rojas950 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)rojas950

Nostradamus Prediction
"From the human flock nine will be sent away, Separated from control and advice Their fate will be sealed on departure K-Th-L make a error; the dead banished"

I just want to know if this is Nostradamus prediction? flock like in birds that fly? 9 has something to do with the plane : British Airways Flight 9 KL Kuala Lumpur and th for thursday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.56 (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Longest Glide?
I do not understand why the article calls this flight "the longest glide in a non-purpose-built aircraft". Air Transat Flight 236 glided for 19 minutes and a distance of about 120 km, while this flight glided only for 13 minutes and an unspecified distance. If the sentence was intended to mean "the longest glide until that day", it should be made more explicit. I hesitate to correct it myself, because I just noticed the discrepancy in passing and may have missed something. Will visit again in a few months to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.51.111 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It says G-BDXH's engineless flight entered the Guinness Book of Records as the longest glide in a non-purpose-built aircraft. That means it was at the time, it does not mean it still is. No 'correction' should be necessary, but maybe an additional comment? Richard 07:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Power source after all eng flame out; batteries only or apu/rat?
When (around 13:43 UTC, 37,000 feet/11,000 m) all engine flame out, emergency power came from batteries only or the crew start an APU or a RAT, or what else?

(This aircraft was equipped whit RAT or not?)

When the crew try to restart engines over the recommended maximum engine in-flight start envelope altitude of 28,000 feet (8,500 m) - and engines restart fall - from where they get power for the restart try? (i suppose an APU power-level is required for this operation)

When (13:56 UTC, 13,500 feet/4,100 m) the crew performed the engine restart procedure again and engine number four finally started, the power for this restart operation was given by APU?

regards 2.43.148.36 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to know the answers to all your questions, but as far as I know, a RAT cannot be deployed at 37,000 feet. Richard 08:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a procedure that violates the animal rights.... ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.143.167 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in the internet someone say that this airplane don't have Rat (?). But the altitude is a problem for Rat only below some quote/speed ('cause the Rat don't work without wind speed), not over; in example in the Gimli Glider all engine flame out, the Rat appear to be used around 35,000 feet. 31.157.21.125 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Ray, Manatee CO.,11 October 2021 FL spoke with captain Moody, they did not start the app as the engines were windmilling and creating sufficient energy to power all nessesary operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck79pacecar (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on British Airways Flight 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124235355/http://www.maturetimes.co.uk:80/node/1847 to http://www.maturetimes.co.uk/node/1847

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Galunggung Gliding Club

 * The passengers are members of the Galunggung Gliding Club
 * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.rec.sheds/TOc82PVYTEs%5B1-25%5D
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Andrewgprout and Username006 please STOP!
I saw the both of you fighting for an edit. Please do not do that. Username seems correct but please add a reference to something like ASN. Don't fight for it. KlientNo.1 (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happier if someone could provide references for this detail - saying everyone knows is not accepatable on Wikipedia. Refusing to provide such when asked is also not accepable. A reference that actually says this is the ICAO flight number and another that actually says this is the IATA flight number is what is needed.  I am also unsure what exact encyclopaedic value this extra detail adds to the page - In reality it is plain repetition. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * just a subsequent note to note that username006 and Klientno.1 turned out to be one and the same person. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with him, that every detail about an event like British Airways Flight 9 is important and valuable for the article. Even seemingly minor details can provide a more complete understanding of the incident and its impact. It is always best to provide reliable sources to support any information added to Wikipedia, as this helps to maintain the credibility and accuracy of the article. Thank you for your attention to detail and commitment to improving the quality of the article if any. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath-is the airspace closure really permanent?
The article says "close the airspace permanently" It felt a bit extreme to be actually permanent(and we are now 40 years later). It might have been so at the time pending further decision, which is more indefinite than permanent but written as permanent in the source and thus replicated here. I tried to look for any air space closure info and have failed to find any. There does not appear to be a NOTAM when searching for Galunggung. Staring at live air traffic, I saw some flight come within about 15 miles of the mountain. But I'm not an airman so my tools are limited to what I can find via searches, could someone who actually knows how to identify closed airspace verify whether there is still a closure? Proving a negative is unfortunately rather difficult. If it is open, we should probably try and find the date of re-opening. If it is still closed, either more recent source or stronger phrasing might be helpful to put curiosity like mine to rest. 2601:647:4200:6ED:3CD4:B140:A99F:ABE8 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely. I imagine the editor who wrote that had information that the airspace had re-closed indefinitely, not permanently. It's not proving a negative though, just a difficult positive. I believe somewhere there's a record of a regulatory change that re-opened the airspace. I tried every combination of search terms in the AAIB (UK registration) and NTSB (US country of manufacture) databases, and I can't find anything. Dcs002 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of help, but the coordinates for the mountain are 7.2567315 S, 108.0770588 E, and I found a VFR route chart for that part of Java. The chart was effective as of October 2018, but it has no expiration date on it. It's published by the Indonesian Directorate General of Civil Aviation, so I think at the time of publication it was reliable. I located the volcano by the coordinates above, and there is nothing in that area to indicate any flight restrictions at all. There are regions of restricted airspace around a nearby air force base, but the closest restricted airspace shown on this chart is about 25 km from the volcano. If you're interested, | here's a link to the chart. It's on the 2nd page. The volcano isn't indicated by name, but it's tucked in just south of a peak that reaches 7160 ft, and the caldera is obvious on the chart. The charts I used during my flying days (and they were brief) didn't have the same symbols as this chart, so I don't know if there are restrictions in the area that apply to IFR flight only, or to passenger carrying service, I dunno. If I'm reading this chart correctly (and that's a big if), that airspace can hardly be considered to be closed if there are no restrictions on visual flight in that area. The charts I used always had an expiration date printed on them, usually 6 months after their effective date. This obviously isn't an RS - not in my hands anyway - but it's a clue that you're on the right track, and it does appear to be an official publication. Dcs002 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)