Monday, April 13, 2009

In Hockey it's an Honour

Yes, in answer to a comment regarding partying in the comments here when I'm away, by all means. You're all welcome to discuss whatever topics strike your fancy here. I just ask that you not be abusive to one another, and that a topic started on one blog entry remain on that blog entry, no matter how many days ago it was, and not get spread over different blog entries. That way the discussion is in one place that people can follow it, (you know how to tick the box to get replies e-mailed to you, right?) and people who are tired of that topic can move on and not have it follow them around.

I do intend to comment on the young Canadian who attempted to commit "suicide by cop" in a C172, and the Garuda pilot jailed for continuing a dangerously unstable approach, but I haven't finished thinking about those stories so today a bit of numerical superstition to go with the date.

I was e-mailing with someone who works with United Airlines and he mentioned that demand is down so much that with corresponding reduction in flight schedules, starting March 29th the range of flight numbers assigned by his airline will be from 1 to 999. They won't need four digit flight numbers anymore. And then as an aside he listed of numbers to be blocked as unusable: 13 93 113 175 213 232 313 413 513 585 613 713 811 813 911 913.

Fascinating. You quickly see that any number that would be pronounced with a "thirteen" is avoided to soothe the triskaidekaphobes, and that leaves 93, 175, 232, 585, 811 and 911. Do you recognize what's happened here? I didn't realize it before, but airlines retire flight numbers the way hockey teams retire player numbers, but in this case it's not for scoring a lot of goals. Each of the unusable flight numbers represents a major air disaster involving that flight number. It's a combination of respect for the dead and avoiding making people uncomfortable to be boarding "United Airlines Flight 93."

UA 175 was the other company airplane lost on September 11th, 2001, and the blocked 911 also refers to that date. United even changed the flight times on that route so that there is no longer an eight a.m. departure that could be said to be the same flight. UA232 was the famous DC-10 landing with no hydraulics in Sioux City. UA585 killed all on board crashing at Colorado Springs due to an uncommanded rudder hard-over. And UA811 had a cargo door come off in flight, resulting in nine fatalities.

Movies and newspaper stories often don't say "United 811" but just "Flight 811" as though there were only one flight anywhere with that number. But of course the same flight number can be used by different airlines, and by the same airline day after day. As I started to write this I knew there had been two different crashes of "Flight 191." American Airlines 191 had an engine separate from the wing during takeoff severing hydraulic lines and cutting off power to some captain-side instrumentation. Delta Airlines 191 was brought down by a microburst while landing at Dallas-Fort Worth. While looking for those Wikipedia links I discovered three other flight 191 accidents. Wikipedia includes a sixth, the recent Turkish Airlines 1951, but I think that's stretching it.

I was assigned the transponder code 0313 recently, and a seat in row thirteen on two different legs of a three leg airline itinerary. One was even an emergency exit row. I wonder if other passengers avoided that row, leaving it for me, the late check-in.

16 comments:

Traveller said...

I've met the pilot for United 232. One amusing aspect was that I missed the airing of the TV movie based on that flight to meet him. He gave a very detailed and engaging briefing to the local quarterly flying safety meeting.

I was in New Orleans when Pan Am 759 crashed due to microburst on takeoff. My flight instructor of the time told us about getting that scenario in the simulator once they knew what had happened.

I'm surprised they allow Flight 666. They had to renumber US Highway 666 in New Mexico due to complaints. Of course, if you remove all possible "numbers that might discourage passengers", you wouldn't have enough left.

The National Weather Service removes the names of significant storms from the lists that rotate through a six year cycle. This is probably more to avoid confusion than because of superstition, but definitely a similar practice.

Astroprof said...

When I get a chance to select a seat, I often pick row 13. Enough other people avoid it that I often don't have anyone sitting next to me.

The Flying Pinto said...

we actually don't have row 13 on our aircraft,a major airline, this is true.....I always tell passengers in row 14, "don't let the # fool you....it's still row 13;-)They look at me like I have 10 heads: )

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised airlines retire numbers of their flights that have crashed, at least until they've likely passed out of our collective memories.

I vividly remember driving to Chicago the day AA 191 went down and hearing that story unfold. Unspeakable horror. Not everyone is going to remember every number, but they really stand out when you do.

But, there appears to be a time limit to this restriction, even if it's probably unofficial.

According to flightaware.com, NW operated a flight 710 as recently as August 2008. NW 710 was a flight that crashed on March 17, 1960. This was one of the at least two L188 Electras that fell victim to design flaw issues when that type first entered service, breaking apart in midair and crashing near Tell City, Indiana with the loss of all onboard.

I don't memorize flight numbers, I've just always been fascinated by the 4-engine Electra and thought I'd check this particular flight.

As a way far aside, in recent years I met one of the NW ground crew who dispatched that flight from MSP. It sure stands out in his mind...

Also, I took a quick, unofficial peek at flightaware and couldn't find a flight "666" on any of the majors I checked. I've gotta believe 666 is taboo also...

Bob in Minnesota

MathFox said...

I have found Jet Airways flight 666 from Lucknow to Mumbay (Source: KLM pdf schedule). There are several 1666, 2666, etc. flights.

And "everyone" knows that transponder codes are octal, so 0013 actually is 11.

Sarah said...

It makes sense you'd find flight 666 in Asia. The superstition is a Christian one, from the bible, right? And what about '668'... "the neighbor of the beast". :)

Conversely, I found flights '7' and especially '8' or '88' to be assigned to the orient. In China, especially ( maybe Asia generally? ) '8' is supposedly wonderfully good luck.

Years ago in the soaring club, we had 3 venerable Schleicher gliders, the K-7, K-8 and K-13. We lost one in an accident, care to guess which one? Yep, my favorite, the '13. But I don't want to believe.

kbq said...

Off topic (under Avatrix's "entertainment" license :)...

Always a legend, but it seems it happened in fact - a passenger landing an airplane after the pilot dies. Granted, he was a pilot - but not for an advanced twin... http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=28234&z=3

Kevin

Buzzoff said...

Yeah, I guess 'Pilot Lands Plane' doesn't have the same sex appeal, huh? I love the media on aviation. I've been known to employ sarcasm.

Colin said...

Air Canada doesn't seem to do this, though. You can still fly AC797 from Montréal to Los Angeles if you're so inclined.

Sarah said...

Blogger Buzzoff said...
Yeah, I guess 'Pilot Lands Plane' doesn't have the same sex appeal, huh? I love the media on aviation. I've been known to employ sarcasm.
Referring to the pilot incapacitation ( heart attack? ) recently in Florida I presume.

Yes, but there was some truth to it. I'd not care to step into a turboprop untrained. It would make me nervous, I hate that. Flying is supposed to be fun. Here is a good article, including most of the ATC audio:

AOPA article

Aviatrix said...

Once you have turbine engines started, they are easier to manage than piston engines. You don't need to worry about leaning or shock cooling. It always makes you a little nervous to land a type you don't have experience in, but the kind of engines isn't the issue. My concentration is on maintaining the correct approach speed and the sight picture for the eye-wheel height. (Or eye-water height as the case may be).

Sarah said...

Aviatrix: Once you have turbine engines started, they are easier to manage than piston enginesGood to know, but I was using "turboprop" as shorthand for everything I don't know about that class of airplane, not just the engines. It sounds like Doug didn't even have a complex endorsement. Heck, he didn't know how to shutdown the engines after turning off the runway.

I recently saw "Quantum of Solace" .. I know, old news, but it was one of those movies that I felt deserved the Netflix queue and not a theatre ticket. Anyway, I was impressed Bond knew how to handle a DC-3, which is probably harder to wrangle than a King Air. For instance, the weird gear op procedure was shown in the film ( sort of ).

DC-3 gear & flaps

Sarah said...

Ok, I'm a bit bored today. Can't pass up a chance to comment on Astraeus Air's 757, AEU flight 666. It is the tour vehicle for the old heavy metal band "Iron Maiden".

The jet named "Ed Force One", G-OJIB (c/n 24292), is taking the band on its "Somewhere Back in Time World Tour 09". Lead singer Bruce Dickinson is also a 757 captain, and is reportedly piloting some of the flights.
Sounds like fun. Here it is returning from a jaunt to Bermuda:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AEU666

Anonymous said...

The DC3 instructions are wonderful, especially the part about pulling your wheels up at frequent intervals!

I rode in one on holiday in 1965 - ee, they 'ad proper aeroplanes in them days!

crazyscot said...

Following on numbers that might discourage passengers, I noticed a few years ago whilst passing through EGPH that the gate numbers went straight from 12 to 14, but the stand numbers didn't!

Jake's Dad said...

I heard Comair 1313 yesterday.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/COM1313