Talk:USAir Flight 427

crash site
Where exactly did this plane crash? I live in Aliquippa and i want to know. 67.171.94.163 02:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This should give you an idea: http://www.sptimes.com/28-seconds/graphics-day1/crash-site-lg.jpg  NW036 03:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This one says it's here. —EncMstr 03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Biohazard
Does anyone happen to know the exact reasoning behind the declaration of the accident site as a Biohazard?

While I can't find any hard evidence to link to this, I suspect this was due to the human body parts found all around the site. This never made the papers (to my knowledge), but my mother (an RN) was a medical voulenteer who helped collect said body parts for identification.

I can still remember her telling me about all the limbs strewn across the crash site. So sad.


 * I believe it was the body parts. My dad, an Anglican priest, was also there with the workers; I remember that they had to don HAZMAT suits because of the bodies.-- Anglican (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But don't most air crashes of this nature have human remains strewn about? what in general was actually different about this crash, because the only hard idea that comes to mind is that some remains where buried due to the heavy impact? 82.34.60.76 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that the nature of the plane impacting the ground, intact, at high speed and high angle, meant you had a lot of ground up body parts mixed among the wreckage, all in a small area.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Future note to anyone writing on this page, be sure to sign all your posts with four tildes as per Wikipedia editing requirements. NW036 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of this, but according to the Discovery Channel series Mayday, this was apparently the first time a biohazard declaration had been made for a crash site of this nature. I think this needs to be expanded upon. There had to be some reason because I haven't heard of biohazards being declared for much larger crashes with more fatalities... 23skidoo (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cause of the accident
I am not sure whether the way the cause of accident is laid here is correct. Jamming of the servo was the initial observation the investigators came across. However, further investigation by aircraft makers engineers revealed the servo could reverse under the same condation as above, i.e. when the servo was cooled below zero degrees centigrade and then heated suddenly. The second possibility would be more likely to make the plane react opposite to the expectation than the former. Just my two cents. gathima 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is correct and I believe that Episode 5 of Season 4 of Mayday touches upon this eventuality. The eventual explanation was that when the Dual Servo valve was submitted to a thermal shock, I.E. hot hydraulic fluid pumped through a cold valve (something that could happen if the plane was descending from high altitude flight, and if the valve had not fully defrosted) that the valve could not only jam, but also reverse. This is almost certainly fitting of the behaviour of the plane, and the inability of the crew to recover its dive, before it slammed into the ground 82.34.60.76 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
This article is practically identical to USAir Flight 427. Even the talk page for the USAir article redirects here! They're obviously talking about the same incident. I'm proposing a merge into the USAir Flight 427 page. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find out if there was another United Airlines Flight 427 that got into trouble. At the moment this whole page is wrong. It should rather be deleted, as |United Airlines]] is not USAir. I don't know how this article got here in the first place. Maybe some well-hidden vandalism?--ospalh (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found out what happend. User:Y21 somehow incorrectly thought it was United Airlines Flight 427, not USAir Flight 427 and moved the page. Instead of moving the page back User:Golf131 somehow reverted the contents of the USAir Flight 427 page. From that time (March 2 2009) the pages have drifted apart. What we should do:
 * Merge the changes on USAir Flight 427 into United Airlines Flight 427 (the "real" history is there).
 * Delete the USAir Flight 427 page
 * Move the United Airlines Flight 427 page to USAir Flight 427
 * Delete the automatically created redirect at United Airlines Flight 427.
 * We'll need an administrator for parts of that. I'm not one.--ospalh (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
See also the section above. This page was moved by User:Y21 and shouldn't have been. USAir Flight 427 is correct.

I've just moved the relevant changes made to the resurrected USAir Flight 427 page into the misnamed United Airlines Flight 427 page. I drop some vandalism that had been reverted and a line that was a copy of the "third worst aviation accident involving a Boeing 737-300" which would have been repeated.

As I see it, the United Airlines version should now be moved over the USAir version.

Btw, about three hours after User:Y21 did the move, that user was banned as a sock puppet. That's just as a bit of explanation how this mess happend.--ospalh (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg

"Crossover speed"
Regarding revision 1043139109: the key word is not "speed", but rather the word written in all capitals in the edit summary: "minimum". Without that word, the reader might be left wondering: Can the ailerons counteract a fully deflected rudder at that speed? Or below that speed? Or above that speed? Including the word "minimum" makes it perfectly clear. I see no reason to revert this edit. Brianjd (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Image of crash site
According to the, the image of the crash site has privacy issues. says:
 * Over time I have talked with locals who lived in that area at the time of the crash and they said that the man who owns the property prefers no one goes onto the land.

This deletion request has been open for a long time, partly because the file is in use on other projects. Now that we have this information, would editors on this site be prepared to remove the image? Brianjd (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No. There is no problem with the photograph either legally or morally, just people misunderstanding privacy. Lots of photos are of private property. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Video aileron discrepancy
Early NTSB animation video shows no aileron deflection, but the cockpit view simulation shows extreme deflection. No deflection for roll seems highly improbable, but it does show pitch. What am I missing? Or is the 'Early NTSB animation' wrong? If it was proved wrong, should it be deleted? Ex nihil (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)