Jump to content

Talk:2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ambiguous transition

[edit]

The following transition between paragraphs is vague and needs further explanation.

The next problem was when they could not land back at the airport, because they were too high in the air. If they attempted to make a steep descent, the plane would crash. The situation was compounded by leaking fuel from one of the tanks and the fire on the left wing.

Finally, the pilots managed to land the plane back at the airport.

...How did they do that if they couldn't descend?

--Mrohrer 2:23, 1 September 2006

Captain Gennotte remembered seeing a broadcast about United Flt 232 (that DC-10 that crashed at Sioux City, Iowa, 1989) and that the pilot had used throttles to control the aircraft. By using differential thrust, the crew were able to gingerly control the airplane. On first approach they were too high, so they were able to turn around and go on their extended 12 mile downwind, and then come back and land safely. I was there and saw the entire thing. My hat is off to the crew for remaining calm under such extreme circumstances, landing safely, and saving themselves and the airplane.

--Hawker 09:01, 14 March 2007

Paragraph needs clarification, expansion

[edit]

I didn't understand this sentence, so I removed it until someone with more expertise about this incident can clarify it:

They(the pilots?) turned (the plane?), whilst being videotaped by a French journalist, who saw the missile being fired, and American Apache helicopters (in the area?).

--Guroadrunner 10:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist

[edit]

Some French journalists who had videotaped the whole incident later came under criticism for not trying to stop the attack, but the journalists argued that they would have been shot if they attempted to leave or resist. Did anyone really expect the journalists to stop insurgents with missiles? Nil Einne 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is confirmed by the Aircrash Investigation epsiode. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flight number

[edit]

Can anyone locate a flight number? This article should be entitled [[DHL Flight xxx]]. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there was no flight number because of the nature of the flight; any flight originating from Baghdad isn't exactly going into congested airspace where every flight needs a flight number, is it? So Iraq doesn't require them, which means DHL didn't bother with one. If, however, you have any good ideas for a better title, we really could do with better than this. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I was there for this entire event and the Tower (run by Australians at that time) simply called out "Oscar Oscar Delta Lima Lima." There was no flight number that was being used.

Hawker 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted unsourced remark about who fired the missle

[edit]

An anonymous user had edited the page so that it read "...a SA-14 ground-to-air missile, fired by Islamofascists, struck the Airbus..." I deleted the italicized words.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the author of that edit intended the word "Islamofascists" to be descriptive rather than inflammatory. As far as I can tell, no one knows who fired the missle, so it is impossible to know their motivation, and whether they felt they were acting in the name of Islam. The attackers' motives might have been secular, or they might have been merely nihilist vandals.

Brianriceca 08:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgents is a better word. The sentences in the lede marked as needing verification are verified by the Aircrash Investigation episode mentioned in the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards to the Crews

[edit]

I refer to the sentence "The crew has been given some of the highest awards the aviation community had to offer.", which was deleted due to uncited source. On one of the documentary on National Geographic which covered the whole incident, the crew was indeed awarded top aviation awards and have photos on it.

ADouBTor 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added Feb/08 Interactbiz (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shootdown?

[edit]

Why is this article titled a "shootdown" incident if the aircraft landed safely? Socrates2008 05:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

attempted shootdown? --122.104.43.23 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title again : 2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident is extremely confusing. Is the 'incident' DHL-attempted (by DHL)? Was a missile fired down from a DHL plane? I would suggest 2003_Baghdad_missile_attack_on_DHL_plane . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.104 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Socrates2008 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out of hand. To keep it in line with the semi-informal naming style for disasters and near-disasters, how about simply 2003 Baghdad DHL A300 incident? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Written-off or Repaired?

[edit]

According to Airfleets.net the plane was destroyed, while the Wiki article says it was repaired. Which is correct? Socrates2008 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest Google Earth coverage shows the plane sitting where it was last moved, that I know of anyway, at 33 15'28.64N 44 13'50.06E Traumatic (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website would be the prefered answer as informations on wiki has to be proven true by linking to primary information sources (Eg: NTSB). If there's no verification of the information's source(s)in wiki, then one should not take belief on it.ADouBTor (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still in the aport picture taken here: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-A300B4-203(F)/1909863/&sid=e33bad303173dec2dd1f487ea22392ef

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flight engineer?

[edit]

Just being curious, but why would a modern aircraft such as an A300 have a flight engineer on board? --DrFod (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This aircraft was over 30 years old so would have been built with a 3 person flight deck. Perhaps the Iraqi incident demonstrates that a 3 flightcrew aircraft is safer during emergencies. Interactbiz (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of DHL?

[edit]

A person wrote, without attribution, that people criticized DHL for exposing employees to danger without additional pay. I can find no confirmation that criticism, if made, was widespread and from credible sources. It is hard to give weight to the statement because this experienced aircrew would have known historic risks of entering a conflict zone. Whether they were or were not offered danger pay seems irrelevant. Accordingly, I removed this wording: “DHL came under criticism for ordering crew members into Iraq without any additional danger pay.” Interactbiz (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine damage?

[edit]

Is there any solid evidence that the picture at the bottom (showing engine damage from ingesting debris) actually relates to this incident? It may be may be familiar to some, as it has also been circulating in an email hoax that made the rounds just before the Beijing Olympics (then claiming to show a Chinese jet that supposedly landed at Frankfurt airport with damaged engines). Trying to confirm that the Wikipedia picture of the damaged engine was indeed from the DHL A300, I looked at the reports linked at the bottom of the article and could not find any explicit mentions of engine damage. A damaged wing and deflated tires were listed as the only damage. Pictures of engines were notably absent from the gallery of aircraft damage. According to a Chinese language thread discussing the Chinese aircraft hoax email, the 46 fan blades identify the engine in the picture as a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7J, which is not one of the types listed as having been used on the A300. A google search finds evidence that this same set of pictures has been circulating since at least 2001-04-02 (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-3725.html), more than two years before the Baghdad incident (and suspiciously close to an April 1). Unless the engine picture can be independently verified it should be removed. Joewein (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can help with is to state that I uploaded the image personally - at the time of upload, it was in a flickr image set with other 2003 incident images. Unfortunatelly, since that time the person changed his account name (I have no clue why) and I could find the image now here. That flickr guy seems to have re-uploaded all his images to flickr but he pretty messed them up this time, so that this particular image does bear partly other image set and tagging now - there seem to be few 2003 incidnet tags again though.--Kozuch (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found that the A300 in this incident used General Electric CF6-50C2 engines (see http://www.airfleets.net/crash/crash_report_EuropeanAirTransport_OO-DLL.htm), not Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7J as in these Chinese aircraft hoax pictures (http://joewein.net/hoax/hoax-chinese-jet-engine.htm), one of which is part of the Flickr set. Joewein (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I will be the one to have the courage to remove it. It is quite obvious that is not the same engine. I have a series of closeup photos of that airplane, after it was parked, which prove that the engine photo now in the article, is a hoax. Most of the debris from the missile explosion would have been blown to the rear, behind the wing, just by the force of the air stream. If it had been blown forward, so that it was ingested by the port engine (that would require a powerful force, to counteract the wind stream), the outer portion of the wing would have been blown off too. The damage is so bad to the compressor blades (in the Wiki photo), that it would have come apart, or it would have vibrated so badly that it would have forced a manual shutdown. It is apparent, that whatever hit those fan blades, it had to be after the plane was on the ground. That alone, makes the photo caption erroneous. EditorASC (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented injury free landing

[edit]

Not unprecedented at all. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact the first time an aircraft was landed, intact with no fatalities or significant injuries to anyone aboard, without any functional control surfaces, so yes, yes it is very much unprecedented. If you have any source for an incident that can make that claim before this flight I'd very much love to see it. 2001:558:6040:82:7CD6:B941:F0A2:C349 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Site with images of repair

[edit]

Leaving post if someone wants to add link in topic. http://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7080

Background Section?

[edit]

I find that the 'Background' section of the article is very meager as it does not mention anything whatsoever about the terrorists firing the missile? Surely something must be known about them, given that there were two journalists with them that docuented the whole thing?

Okama-San (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reputable sources about that aspect, then please cite them and include the information. If not, refrain from adding rumors. Corqe (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapped or stored?

[edit]

There is a claim at the end of the Aftermath section that the airframe with serial number 093 was eventually scrapped after going unsold. I cannot find any supporting information that the aircraft was scrapped, only old photos showing it abandoned. Additionally, the web article at the link below claims that the aircraft is in storage, not dismantled. The article was last updated in October 2022. This may not mean that the status itself was updated, but it may be considered more recent information, and with contrary information to the unsourced statement. I have since edited the page, but it was tagged with a citation that only showed a picture of the intact aircraft and made no such claims about any disassembly. Please advise/rebut as you see fit.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a300b4-n1452-pacific-aeromotive-corporation/2r1por
Corqe (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of OO-DLL just before the incident

[edit]

There is a photo (https://www.planepictures.net/v3/show_en.php?id=157524) taken on 20 November 2003, 2 days before the incident. It shows that OO-DLL was painted all-white with DHL titles in bright red (which is corroborated by other photos taken on the day, after OO-DLL landed). Now of course, we must seek the copyrighter's permission before publishing that photo on Wikipedia, but I believe it is worthy of investigation because the photograph we are using currently represents OO-DLL in an older livery instead (a maroon cheatline and maroon DHL titles). The copyrighter mentions the incident in the caption, which leads me to assume they already know of the association between OO-DLL and the incident. JustAnotherNZWikipedian (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident&oldid=1254081501"