Talk:ValuJet Flight 592

Comments

I moved a lot of the text from the Valujet article relating to the crash and merged it with the text already posted. WhisperToMe 01:36, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

592 didn't really destroy ValuJet, just forced the transformation into the AirTran of today. Perhaps that text should be editied. 129.21.143.179 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Should it matter mentioning the false "empty" status of the canisters? I was taking a Hazardous Materials course right after the crash, and we discussed the crash (still in the news) at length as a rolling practical exercise. The canisters were supposed to be marked for cargo aircraft only. The canisters are also classified to be treated the same if they are empty or full. As you may know, some chemicals are more dangerous as vapor than liquid, so an "empty" container may contain the vapor making it more dangerous. Regardless, the empty/full status is irrelevant when handling oxygen generators. BenWilson 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The investigation program from Seconds to Disaster clearly said that the canisters were labeled as "empty" when they were not, and that contributed to the accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the 'empty' reports arose from an early mis-reporting of the oxygen canister types involved immediately after the accident. It was initially assumed by some that the 'oxygen' carried in the cargo hold was stored in pressurised bottles, however it was later discovered that the devices were chemical generators used in the passenger emergency overhead mask system. The generators were time-expired, and not empty as has been stated, they had been removed from an aircraft during maintenance so they were probably still functionable and therefore still dangerous.

The cannisters were supposed to have had a safety pin inserted for transport but the pins were not available and so the actuating cords were cut and taped to the sides of the cannister. At some time in the hold a cannister actuated creating the heat that lead to the igniting of the other cannisters in the box, which being oxygen-fuelled created much higher than normal temperatures, above those which the cargo hold was able to contain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rolled On Its Side & Crashed Nose First Contradicts Accompanying Illustration

I was baffled by the illustration which shows the aircraft in a level flight attitude before impact compared to the text which reads "Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 pm. It rolled onto its side and crashed to the ground nose-first in the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h)."

Incidentally, the following sentence from the one quoted above is somewhat confusing "The crew continued to fly the plane until seven or fewer seconds before impact, likely until the front left floor beams collapsed and caused failure of the flight controls." Is this consistent with a nose-down attitude? I suspect the pilots were suffering from severe disorientation and request that this conclusion should be included in the paragraph. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

I was looking at this article and noticed the issue with the illustration as well. If there aren't any objections, I'd suggest removing the image from the entry as what it shows is at odds with the entry text.  Natty10000 | Natter  16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Should have been removed long ago. Doing that now. Rsduhamel (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Spike the altimeter

The article mentions the altimeter "spiked" due to the sudden pressure increase presumably caused by one of the tyres in the cargo container bursting. Doesn't an increase in pressure mean a drop in height? So the altimeter would dip, not spike.

I realise the appaling pedantry I'm expressing here when a hundred people died. That's Internets! 188.29.165.202 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What it means is the pressure reading suddenly went up then rapidly went back down.184.1.71.147 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Predicted in Fiction

I've just finished watching a Made-For-TV disaster film entitled "Crash: The Mystery of Flight 1501" (Or at least as it's written on the box of the DVD I have "Crash: The Mystery Flight of 1501".). The film was made in 1990 and aside from featuring the lead investigator into the ValuJet592 crash in the role of the doomed flights co-pilot the cause of the crash is very similar to ValuJet592, namely the transport of mislabled oxygen generating (& highly flamable) chemicals in a class D cargo hold.

The actual inspiration was probably Air Canada Flight 797 since details of that incident turn up in the fictional reconstruction of the accident sequence.

This might be worth adding to the article.Graham1973 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Impact speed

How was the plane's speed at impact determined when the flight data recorder stopped one minute before the crash?184.1.71.147 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Victims

The list should include all or none, much less one person who wasn’t even on the flight. (I think the last is a slap in the face to families of victims who are excluded.) The two victims listed would be unrecognizable today by the vast majority of readers. Nicmart (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Agent 007 (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

---

ValuJet Flight 592 → ValuJet Airlines Flight 592ValuJet Airlines Flight 592 - I would like to settle which name is better for the article since there has been some dispute over what the article should be called. The editor (sockpuppeter) who moved it in 2021 did it without a requested move. Zaptain United (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – Despite the airline's official name being Valujet Airlines, sources most commonly refer to the accident as "Valujet Flight 592" and not "Valujet Airlines Flight 592". For one, the Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that "ValuJet Flight 592" is consistently more used than "ValuJet Airlines Flight 592". Next, the English NOW Corpus, a registration-based database that "Contains billions of words of data from web-based newspapers and magazines from 2010 to the present time", shows that "Valujet Flight 592" is used 23 times compared to "ValuJet Airlines Flight 592" which is only used two times:

NOW Corpus frequency results

Search term	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Valujet Flight 592	0	1	0	1	0	2	4	2	1	3	2	1	4	0	1	1
Valujet Airlines Flight 592	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Additionally, there are 752 results for "Valujet Flight 592" on Google Scholar compared to 96 for "Valujet Airlines Flight 592" (with the search results of the latter also using "Valujet Flight 592" when talking about the accident). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support to be WP:CONSISTENT with other airplane disaster articles. All such articles include "Airlines" or equivalent as part of the title, e.g. Alaska Airlines Flight 261, American Airlines Flight 191, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, etc.. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's remarkable that in the examples you quote, if you drop the 'Airlines', you end up with ambiguous, unclear titles ('Alaska Flight 261', 'American Flight 191'), so yes, in those cases you do need the full airline name, but in this case there's no such ambiguity: in 'Valujet Flight 592', Valujet is clearly the name of an airline. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:CONCISE and as per above. If anything, the longer titles should all be abbreviated if consistent with source usage. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – When discussing the crash, the airline is consistently referred to simply as 'ValuJet', with very few exceptions. The proposed new title isn't any clearer or more recognisable than the current one; it's just more verbose and pedantic. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.