Talk:TWA Flight 843

POV
The article presents the NTSB's conclusion as to the cause of the accident. Flight attendant Kay Chandler gives a different story (see External links), and claims that the NTSB ignored both physical and documentary evidence pointing to a structural failure, in favor of the &ldquo;human error&rdquo; explanation. Perhaps the article should include both points of view. DES (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, does Kay Chandler have media attention to her viewpoint? As per NPOV we only represent significant minority viewpoints. Which media organizations reported on Chandler's ideas? How did the NTSB respond? - If these conditions are satisfied, simply say "The NTSB concluded A. Chandler said B. The NTSB responded by saying C." WhisperToMe (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Google reveals very little, unfortunately. Upon closer investigation, there are aspects of her story that puzzle me, such as her claim that NTSB characterized the flight attendants as confused and hysterical, when in fact the report clearly states that "the performance of the flight attendants during the emergency was exceptional and probably contributed to the success of the emergency evacuation", "the emergency evacuation of the airplane was accomplished in an exemplary manner" and "both the flight attendants and the flight crewmembers, as well as the off-duty crewmembers, performed exceptionally well in the evacuation".
 * That being said, the article claims that "the NTSB attributed the crash to pilot error and TWA training and maintenance issues" but fails to mention "design deficiencies in the stall warning system that permitted a defect to go undetected". Also, what the article calls "pilot error" would be more accurately described as "poor CRM", or as the NTSB puts it, "inadequate crew coordination between the captain and first officer that resulted in their inappropriate response to a false stall warning". DES (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For Chandler's story see what Google News brings up - use all dates. If it doesn't get anything I wouldn't include Chandler's stuff. Anyway, as for the other stuff, that is what Being Bold will help accomplish. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the way the article is written does not put the NTSB in the best light. Perhaps this is as it should be, and this really wasn't the NTSB's finest hour. But perhaps the wording in the actual NTSB report was more nuanced. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3453:7AF8:7F0:AFDF (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Passenger & Eyewitness Testimony
TWA 843 KTVU Fox News July 30, 1992

Local KTVU News interviews with survivors may conflict with NTSB and support pilots. Stunned passengers noticed an orange glow before they saw first flames. Note: orange glow may not be the same as the flicker of fire and flame.

One eye witness, Tim Joyce, said the airplane dropped onto its right side, big huge orange flame, lot of smoke, it continued down runway on fire a bit, it came to a stop, the nose collapsed, tail on fire, the doors opened, chutes opened, they evacuated quickly. Several saw glow of flames.

One female passenger: we landed, thought it was over, then saw flames. Another female passenger: it wouldnt stop bouncing. Madeleine Austin, passenger: the plane was on fire while we were in the air, I saw reflections of the fire in the movie screen.

KTVU consensus description: plane lifts off for a moment like a 'hop', orange glow of flames in engine, pilots hard land, tires blow, plane veers left and burst into flames. Madeleine Austin, passenger: the landing took an eternity when you know your plane is on fire.

This overtly conflicts with official NTSB report that claim a normal safe takeoff could have occurred. NTSB blamed faulty sensors and pilots for flawed takeoff abort routine, and according to wikipedia (which may need a big edit) made no reference to any 'engine fire' witnesses/passenger claim they saw as causal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.68.141.83 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous incident relevant?
Is the previous incident section worth including considering it happened 17 years before and did not result in damage to the aircraft? MKFI (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, none of the sources suggest any relevance to TWA843. This isn't another JAL123. 86.12.184.49 (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)￼


 * I removed it. 80.3.183.104 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)