Talk:Oceanic Flight 815

On the Oceanic Flight 815 site, if you count the number of seats, there are actually 9 more seats than are listed. Funny cause if you add 1+0+8 that = 9

Does anyone else find it weird that the plane broke apart so cleanly?Meterman 00:14, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

Yes, I do. Looking at the stills, I want to think the security system had something to do with it. The "smoke" seems to come from a non-fiery source, and just disappears. Perhaps the security system pulled it apart, like lifting a tree up from its roots? -- SLSDuke82

How did Oceanic Air explain that there were survivors when they were all supposed to be dead?

Since the crash was staged by charles widmore, wouldnt this of confused people and the media etc, since the Oceanic six made it back alive, even with their fabricated story, it still doesnt explain how they survived, wouldnt this of set alarm bells going, we know charles widmore suspects they would of been on the island?--Nzoomed 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight length

The article states that the 777 could not have made the Sydney->LAX trip before 2005. However, Syd to LAX is 12052 km according to Qantas, which is ~7,489 mi. According to Boeing, 2 April 1997, the Boeing 777-200ER traveled non-stop from Seattle to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12,455.34 miles (and back). That is far more miles than the trip from Syd to LAX. I'm changing this in the article. LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:45, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Since Air Canada flys 777s from Toronto to Sydney, and British Air was reportedly going to fly from London to Sydney on a 777, I think this point has been proven. --Pedxing 10:10, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

LHR-SYD with a 777 (or any other aircraft for that matter) is still economically unfeasible. The longest-range airliners in the world are the 777-200LR (introduced by Boeing last year and so far only flown by Pakistan Airlines) and the Airbus A340-500 (flown by Thai Airways, Singapore Airlines, Emirates and Air Canada), and they can only make the route with severe payload reductions. SYD-LAX is and has been operated for many years, not only with 777s but also 747s and A340s. Antiuser 14:01, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

A screen capture from Exodus: Part 2 shows a departure time for Flight 815 of 14:15 (not 14:55) and planned arrival time in L.A. at 10:42.Oodles 15:54, 6 August 2006 (PDT)

Miscellaneous

I felt that there was not much need to include such technical details, the fact is that due to turbulence the plane crashed, something that is not supposed to happen. Cleaned up and edited. Timothyseanfang 23:30, 9 May 2006, +8 GMT

Agreed. I moved the other tech to a notes section; this retains it as interesting information, not really relevant to LOST. LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:12, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Pull the theory comparing the rubble of OA815 to UA93? Different types of impacts.. UA93 was driven straight into the ground... OA815, well, broke apart in mid-air--Bernini 15:29, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

What's going on with Note #8 and all those bullets beneath it? I was going to try to clean it up, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Duane Dibbley 09:56, 4 May 2007 (PDT)

Titanium?

Being a bit of an aviation geek, I feel like I must correct this... the Boeing 777 is not made of Titanium, but of Aluminium alloys (of which some feature Titanium). Very few aircraft are made of titanium, most of which are military fighter jets or supersonic aircraft. The use of titanium even in military airframes is decreasing with the advent of carbon-fibre/polymer composites. Aluminium still isn't a magnetic metal (those being Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Gadolinium and arguably Dysprosium), but the EMP from the station could've rendered the avionics and engines useless, thus causing the crash. Antiuser 12:25, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

Good catch on the metallurgy. While I'm fully on board with the idea that the magnetic pulse damaged the avionics or, possibly, even the engines (although it would probably be a controller failure rather than damage to fuel pumps or similar hardware), this still begs the question: why did the plane physically break up? A number of aircraft have suffered avionics and even catastrophic engine failure in midair, sometimes creating truly punishing damage, such as United 232 in 1989. But even with a destroyed engine, crippled tail, and destroyed hydraulics, 232 didn't break up. There has to be another factor that caused the physical breakup. (But the EMP nicely explains the transceiver and other electronic failures.) --ConspiracyofDetails 08:33, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

UA Flight 93 Reference

• I would ask that you all do not use the evidence of UA Flight 93 for a couple reasons. Or if you use it be very cautious and sparing. There is still much ongoing conterversy, debate and investigation into what actually happened to the flight and you may step on sensitive toes. Give it a little more time, it's still a bit early. There really is a lot of mystery and confusion as to why there was hardly any fuselage and no bodies left at the UA Flight 93 crash, because this was extremely and unprecendently unusual.--Two Coyotes 18:57, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

• Dude it is okay he was just making a reference that people will know of, and just a side note you sound like Charlie Sheen.--CaptainInsano

8 hour Statistic

It says at the top of the page the plane was in the air for 6 hours (8 including time changes) before the crash. Where does this info come from?

Probably either the pilot or Cindy.--CaptainInsano

The pilot in the pilot. He said: "Six hours in, our radio went out; no one could see us. We turned back to land in Fiji. By the time we hit turbulence, we were a thousand miles off course. They're looking for us in the wrong place." Oodles 15:53, 6 August 2006 (PDT)

Pulled Apart

The plane seems like its being pulled apart in the air in those new shots.

No monster, visible attack or major explosion.

Since the aircraft appears to fall apart directly over the island you would imagine that the pieces had to be pulled down by some force in order to land close enough to the island, rather than being spread out over a massive area.

That said the plane was large from the Others perspective and so seems to have been flying rather low by the point it was ripped apart.--MRNasher

Ah, but now that I look at it -- IF the system failure downed the airplane, it COULD have pulled the airplane apart. However, that would not explain the smoke, which, if you look @ the still shots, seems to appear much like the monster as last seen by Eko. You notice from the previous two seasons the monster can pull trees from the ground. Perhaps the writers were showing this in order to hint at the idea it could have pulled the plane apart? -- Jon

• Since the monster appears like smoke, smoke might also appear like the monster - i.e. black smoke in itself is no evidence of monster activity. --Noseman 2006

Why would the system failure pull the airplane apart? As I see it, there had to be two sources pulling at the airplane for it to break in half and have the two sections fall in different directions (actually, viewing the images of the crash suggests just that - that the two sections are being pulled in two different directions). And if the system failure was an accident, maybe the other source was planned? If the plane was being brought to the island by someone, the first thing they had to do was to render it "invisible" (so that no one would know where to look for it) - this is supported by the captain, claiming that "our radio went out; no one could see us". And doing this at the right time, so the plane would change it's course according to plan. Then, when the plane had come close enough, some sort of electromagnetic tractor beam could be activated, messing up altitude meters and such while at the same time pulling the plane down towards the island. This way, the pilot would think they were at normal altitude, while they were actually much lower. And when the system failure took place, it messed up everything. Someone's plan failed miserably. This would of course mean that while Desmond did crash the plane, he wasn't instrumental in getting the Losties to the island. That would be someone else... --Noseman 2006 20:41, 1 November 2006 (CET)

The Radio?

Has the loss of radio contact on the plane prior to the crash been explained yet? I dont' remember it being explained, but i may be missing something. It's not mentioned either way anywhere. This requires mention!--NotARedHerring 15:23, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

• Indeed! Focus has stayed on the crash itself, but very little discussion centers around the fact that the plane was not supposed to be there at all. And to build a show like "Lost" around a totally random incident is not what anyone of us expects. And judging by how the series has progressed during season three, chance or even fate are hardly valid theories anymore. No, the loss of radio contact and the subsequent change of course indicates that one or possibly more people on the plane was brought to the island as part of a plan. It's still a question of who and why, though... --Noseman 2006 20:58, 1 November 2006 (CET)
  • ...But the impressive file the Others have gathered on Jack might be a clue, as well as the X-rays he spotted in Every Man For Himself... --Noseman 2006

Daylight/ timing of crash

"The timing of the crash is odd.  We know that the flight took off at 14:55 Sydney time and that it broke up and crashed about 
 8 hours later.  The survivors awoke on the island during daylight hours, and the log printout indicates that the crash was caused 
 at 16:44 local island time.  However, a plane heading East from Sydney would be in darkness 8 hours after 14:55 - it would have 
 to be heading West to be in daylight."

Wasn't the plane turned around, heading towards Fiji when it crashed? Not sure on the math, but just a thought. Also, isn't it possible that it's some time warp anyway?

September = 8

Flight 815 crashed on September 23 (see Note re: departure time plus flight time to The Island)). It's worth noting that in some computer systems, particularly in the C language (and elsewhere) on Unix systems, months are numbered starting with zero. This would make September = 8, not 9, in such a system. [1] Also, 14:55 Sydney time (in September) would be 04:55 UTC, another common computer system standard. - GoodRom 11:00, 13 November 2006 (PST)

Passengers

The news report in "One of Us" mentions how many passengers were on the flight, but I don't remember the exact number. This should probably get added.

Sayid, Hurley, Walt, Michael places

Sorry i'm french so my english is bad. I watch the episode "Exodus, Part 2". And i think that :

• Sayid was sit in 7F (i'm 99% sure)
• Sawyer was sit in economy class.
• Hurley was sit in 29HG. (85% sure)
• Walt was sit in 26E
• Michael was sit in 26F

What do you think about that ? --Vivere.memento 18:35, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

Charlies fate to die!

Charlie stands from his seat up, and runs to the toilet. Next Moment - Plan Crashes. He is save. Would he live when he sat on his seat? If not then there begins his fate to die.--Ar-ras 03:56, 4 May 2007 (PDT)

Full crash sequence seen from inside the plane?

To my recollection, I have never seen the entire plane crash sequence, from turbulence to landing on the island, from the inside of the plane. In the very first episode, Jack wakes up in the jungle, after the crash has already taken place. Kate later says she was conscious for the whole thing, but the last we see of her, she is putting an oxygen mask onto Edward Mars. Has there been an entire crash sequence ever aired? How do we know what happened between the mid-air breakup and the actual crash?

Not that I believe the "everyone's dead/in hell" theory, but it's worth thinking about this. Maybe they're clones. Or the "remains found in the ocean trench" are clones.  ;-) --Amberjet11 11:22, 4 May 2007 (PDT)

Crash cause updated

I changed the section which questioned the possibility of Desmond causing the crash to a definitive cause of the crash. If someone can write it better than I did feel free to do so. Also I am not exactly sure how to add in a link for referance but the cause was confirmed on the Lost: The Answers special that aired on May 17.Veridicum 00:38, 19 May 2007 (PDT)

Cleanup

In partial response to the cleanup template tag, much redundant or inappropriate information has been removed from this page, and moved elsewhere. Theories have been moved to the theory tab, the seating chart to the seating chart article, and oceanic-air.com easter eggs to the oceanic-air.com article. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  05:51, 20 May 2007 (PDT)

Good job! It's looking a lot better. Roger Workman 11:56, 20 May 2007 (PDT)

In trivia it says that the clock on the logo for the looking glass is at 8:15, I agree, but we dont know for sure yet, therefore it is just a theory until we get a better look next year, or until tptb say thats what is in the circle.--mac_ad 21:16, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Not meant to be

I think this section should be a separate page. It seems to be extraneous information. What are other people's thoughts? Roger Workman 09:45, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

I do not understand the point of this section. It is a list of reasons why everyone was on the plain. It would be weird to have a bunch of people on a plain who had no reason to be there.

The point of the section is to list which of the survivors could have easily avoided getting on that flight. Take Sayid for example - he could have gotten a flight straight out of Sydney to LA, but he asked for his flight to be changed so he can claim Essam's body, thus having to get on Flight 815.--Baker1000 16:26, 5 January 2008 (PST)

• Many of the points made in this section completely misunderstand the nature of cause and effect. You could include all of mankind in this section. The only types of thingsthat should be included are freakish circumstances--otherwise you mind as well include the other 6 billion people on the earth who have had their flights delayed, plans cancelled, got sick.whatever--John Burger 19:35, 28 May 2008 (PDT)

notice

does anyone have a picture/transcript of the notice that was put up along the road to the set during construction as mentioned in the bonus features

Why did Oceanic build the plane?

I just saw this in Unanswered Questions. 1. It probably wasn't Oceanic who built it, it would have been a company who makes planes (if that makes sense) 2. Why do people build planes? To fly them! So, is this question ok to be deleted?--Baker1000 15:49, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

Go for it. -Mr.Leaf 16:27, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

Yeah, please. I read it and was confused.

Done!--Baker1000 15:10, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

Cause of the Crash: Theory or Confirmed?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it still unclear that if Desmond Crashed the plane or not? - partially confirmed (Lost: The Answers)--Connor401 15:03, 22 August 2007 (PDT)

Lost Explained?

"The Losties can recall events prior to the actual crash but nothing about the crash itself. Kate is an exception here, as she told Jack, in that she was conscious the entire time and saw everything that happened, which seems notable as she was the last person to put the air mask on. ("Pilot, Part 1")"

Maybe the whole thing is all a dream, with the air masks having some type of psychedelic, bringing us to these illusions of experiences on the island. Kate must have seen a bit of the real present before being mentally transported to this "island" when she put the air mask. The last scene will be them on the plane crashing into the ocean, revealing what really happened! z0mg conspiracy: THERE IS NO ISLAND!

Btw, this is pretty much just a vacant thought in my mind. :D

And what about the others watching the plane crashing and sending Etahn and Goodwin?, was it a dream also?--jrcaporal 19:07, 1 November 2007 (PDT)

I removed the entire paragraph about Kate being the only survivor who remembers the crash. That's one of those urban legends spread by people who are to lazy to check a transcript of the pilot episode. The origin of this myth is a conversation between Jack and Kate, during which Jack states that he blacked out during the crash, to which Kate replies that she saw the whole thing. Nothing is ever stated about the remaining survivors remembering the crash or not. Simply put: Just because Jack blacked out and Kate didn't doesn't automatically mean that everyone else also blacked out, and only Kate didn't.--Nevermore 07:47, 4 March 2008 (PST)

TWA 800

This seems obvious to me, and I'm sure that after four years it has been mentioned, but Oceanic 815 resembles the TWA 800 crash. I'm sure this crash is a partial influence on the premise of the show. 1) TWA 800 was a trans-Atlantic flight from NY to France that broke apart mid-air into three separate debris sections at the bottom of the Atlantic, much like 815's trans-Pacific mid-air breakup into three parts (cabin, mid-section, tail-section) on the Island and apparent discovery at the bottom of the Pacific. 2) TWA was huge news and any survivors would have been instant celebrities, much like the Six survivors of 815 of seemingly impossible odds in the middle of the Pacific. 3) There were several conspiracy theories that 800 was shot down by either terrorist missiles or the U.S. Navy accidentally, indeed Chuck references this theory but substitutes Oceanic 815 either as a joke reference to Lost, as part of a game by the producers, or to not hurt any feelings of real life victim families. Is Oceanic 815 supposed to be the Lost Universe's version of TWA 800? What do you think? -- macosx 10:56, 8 February 2008 (PST)

Not meant to be?

Some of this is plausible and logical . But stuff like, "if Ana Lucia hadn't killed Jason, ended up as a security guard and met Christian she wouldn't have ended up in the plane" is way too contrived.--Gonzalo84 11:19, 12 March 2008 (PDT)

Major cleanup

Okay, this was necessary.

The introductory paragprah was WAY too long, contained too much detail information, and as a result, the main body of the article started with the crash. Also, many sub-sections were redundant, and not everything was presented in (chrono)logical order.

I shortened the introductory paragraph to its essentials and moved the detail information to the respective sections. Right now, the structure is a lot more useful. Haven't touched andything from "Not meant to be" onwards yet. I think there's a lot of stuff that can be shortened and cleaned up as well.--Nevermore 13:40, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Staged Oceanic 815 Wreckage

As seen in the footage of the ROVs of the staged plane fuselage in the Sunda Trench you can clearly see that the false plane is broken into 3 pieces exactly like the real Flight 815. Strange thing is that the staged wreckage could not have been damaged like that during it's (staged) crash, otherwise the parts would have been lying way further apart on the ocean floor ... like the wreckage of the Titanic for instance. So did it either brake apart when hitting the rocky ocean floor, which would be a strange coincident, or did whoever staged it placed three pieces on purpose. If so how did he/she know that Oceanic 815 broke into 3 pieces?.--Andy22li 11:04, 07 April 2008(CET)

Can we confirm it was Charles Widmore who staged the wreckage? Before he left the island, Sayid listened only to the freighter's captain version, accusing Ben of being responsible for it (Meet Kevin Johnson). After the rescue, as he talks to Ben, Sayid seems convinced that it was Charles who faked the crash (The Shape of Things to Come).Andresacram 16:15, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

It is complete lack of vision to buy any theory thus far about what exactly is at the bottom of the trench. To claim it was staged--as a fact--is to buy lines delivered by the shows villians. We have been presented with the idea that 2 identical objects can exist in the same time period this season. One clearly portrayed in the Orchid video(Bunny) and one in the form of the Doctor who was dead in one place and alive in the other. Yet people fail to see this. There is a reason these things were written into the show and it is quite obvious that reason is because there 2 Flight 815's in the story. So, at this time, its prudent to talk about the plane in the trench as "apparently staged" or that the shows villians claim it was staged. We can cetainly not state it IS staged yet.--John Burger 19:56, 28 May 2008 (PDT)

Well, that's an interesting point, John. The only thing it doesn't answer is the matter of the ring, which, at least to Lapidus's mind, kills any theory other than a staging. Either that, or Seth Norris pocketed his ring preflight in order to mack on the flight attendants, then alterna-Norris returned the ring to his hand before being mauled by Smokey. Robert K S (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (PDT)

With recent development in the story(timeloop), the staged crash theory seems to be false, the plane crash related in the news can just be the logical end to such a plane accident. And if there is a time/events correcting mechanism, the pilot that should have been in the plane was Lapidus, so it might well be Lapidus in the wreckage (Does he wear a ring?).

Outside references

I thought that section was supposed to be for deliberate references to "Oceanic Flight 815" in non-Lost-related media. What the hell is that incredibly over-analyzed bit about about Sigmund Freud and the "Oceanic Feeling" doing there? If anything, this belongs on the "Oceanic Airlines" page, and even then more in an "inspirations for the name" section, not "outside references to Lost in other media". I seriously doubt that Freud had a fictional airplane from a TV show that wouldn't air until 2004 in mind when he wrote that book in 1930.--Nevermore 15:45, 9 April 2008 (PDT)

• I put it there because I thought it was a valid point to make about "LOST" - If you think it is better suited in a section titled "inspirations for the name" as opposed to "outside references" then I'll shift it over. But to be fair, I don't believe it’s an "incredibly over-analyzed bit" - it’s all straight out of Freud, 100% verifiable and given the writers' penchant for throwing arcane literary and philosophical references into the script, not readily dismissible. Check it out yourself. Thanks! --Qwerty7412369 18:52, 9 April 2008 (PDT)

Why Bali?

Why was the fake crash wreckage (regardless of whether it was Ben or Widmore who placed it) placed off the coast of Bali, i.e. nowhere NEAR Oceanic 815's flight path? 815 was going from Sydney, on Australia's east coast, across the Pacific to LA; Bali is located to the north-west of Australia, in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Wouldn't the mastermind of the fake wreckage have put it somewhere more plausible, like the Tonga Trench? Scarecrow 22:56, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

• Maybe they wouldn't want to draw any attention to the area where Oceanic 815 actually crashed to avoid accidental detection of the island and the survivors.--Andy22li 08:56, 6 May 2008 (PDT)

If you look at Google Earth you'll see that's nonsense. Scarecrow is not talking about it being a little bit out, it's in the wrong bloody ocean! It's like putting the wreckage for a lost Miami-London flight off the west coast of Alaska. There are dozens of deep ocean locations and vast areas of the south-west Pacific which would have made a much more plausible location for the wreckage and would have still been 2000 miles from the actual island. See Flight path of Oceanic 815. Oniswakimalypants 05:15, 27 May 2008 (PDT)

Not meant to be

Under non-canonical survivors, in the "Not meant to be" section, it lists all of the non-canonical characters and reasons for being on the plane. The Section is called "NOT MEANT TO BE" which explains what they should'nt have been on the plane not why. So we can either make a new section about why they were on the plane. But I'm going to change the non-canonical secion cause most of those are not supposed to be there. --LostCloverfield42 19:40, 3 July 2008 (PDT)