| Revision as of 04:25, 20 January 2008 editHopiakuta (talk | contribs)5,997 edits →Recentism: removing libel ← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:30, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,265,089 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Aviation}}, {{WikiProject London}}, {{WikiProject London Transport}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (323 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkpage}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|action1date=16:33, 17 January 2008 |
|
{{WPAVIATION |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/British Airways Flight BA38 |
|
|class=start |
|
|
|
|action1result=withdrawn |
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=185000483 |
|
|B-Class-1=yes |
|
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-2=no <!-- Probably won't be possible to be totally accurate and complete until investigation complete --> |
|
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-3= |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5= |
|
|
|Accident-task-force=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WPUK|nested=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{oldafdfull|page=British Airways Flight BA38|date=]|result='''nomination withdrawn'''}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
==History merge== |
|
|
|
|action2date=December 20, 2010 |
|
I have deleted this again to perform a history merge, I am now watiting for the server to catch up before restoring content. ] (]) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2link=Talk:British Airways Flight 38/GA1 |
|
:Ah, done now.] (]) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|
|action2oldid=403415298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
==Duplicate article== |
|
|
|
}} |
|
] which I created with the correct flight number duplicates this article. As this article was started first (I did search under the correct flight number) and has more material, could someone merge/redirect/retitle etc? There is a link from Wikinews to the article I created, so needs attending to. ] (]) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
:According to the ] the correct name for this article is ]. I have redirected ] to here. I have not performed a history merge as there was no cut and paste/ merging neccessary. ] (]) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Aviation| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =y |
|
::Thanks, Woody. No problem, just no point in having two articles on same thing. Now, how do I add the construction number (Construction number=30314/342) to the infobox?] (]) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> =y |
|
:::Can we consider the discussion over deletion settled, then? That way, I can remove the AfD tag. ] (]) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> =y |
|
::::The AfD had nothing to do with the article naming, it related to the notability of the incident - however the AfD has been withdrawn anyway. ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> =y |
|
:Hey, I did the ]. ] quickly did a merge & redirect :-) ] (]) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> =y |
|
I'm considering the discussion about deletion settled, then, and am removing the deletion tag <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|Accident-task-force=yes}} |
|
:I have readded the tag. The afd has not yet been closed, and has not been open long enough to reach a consensus. Please don't remove the tag until the afd has been closed by an uninvolved party. ] (]) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom}} |
|
::I know these things need to be closed by an uninvolved party, but what is the criteria for closing? There are 15 keeps to two deletes. Is there a timeframe involved? --] (]) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject London |importance=low}} |
|
:::A speedy keep can take place at any time per ], but it has to be done by an admin that is uninvolved in the article itself. -- ] (]) 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject London Transport|importance=mid}} |
|
::::Just make sure the flight number is correct. It looks like "BA038" is the shortened form to "British Airways 038". This is similar notation to United Airlines 175 shortened to UA175. ] (]) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
==Infobox== |
|
|
|
|
|
This seems to have got lost in the text above:- |
|
|
*How do I add the construction number to the infobox? (Construction number=30314/342)] (]) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**Per the ], I don't think there is a parameter for that yet. ] (]) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***Added info to text. ] (]) 17:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The database link from the tail number is broken. Last update of airdisaster.com was in last September. Is it defunct? --] (]) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::changed to a link that works ] (]) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BA38/BA038 == |
|
|
|
|
|
BAA, BA and now the BBC are all saying it is "BA038". This does not appear to clash with ] contrary to an above post, so I think it would be appropriate to move this back to ]. ] (]) 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, I was commenting on ]. Please notice the lack of "BA". I think BA038 is correct and am willing to move it, if other people agree. ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You're right, apologies! Re-edited my other comment in the section above. If BAA and BA say it is BA038 then that's what it is, over and above what the BBC originally called it. ] (]) 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It was called that in the very fresh chaos surrounding the initial breaking news. There were 4 articles created and the page had to be merged a couple of times using deletion. It will be no problem to move it, just need a bit more of a consensus. ] (]) 17:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Support''' Hope doing that won't cause problems as there already has been an article with that title. ] (]) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I always thought it was BA038. That is common usage by BA and most airports that I've visited. ] (]) 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's British Airways Flight 38 as a title, otherwise all the other articles in wikipedia will have to be changed to conform, like "American Airlines Flight AA587" and while we're at it, why not start using ICAO codes as well as IATA codes, so British Airways flight BAW038 and British Airways BAW038 and British Airways BAW38 and British Airways flight BAW38 and then we can start using British Airways former name BOAC and the British tagline it used in the 1980s and slogans too, so "The world's favourite airline flight 38" and "the worlds favourite airline flight BA038".... |
|
|
|
|
|
You get my point. Stick with convention for the actual title, as discussed previously, and feel free to make as many redirects to this as you like. It saves arguments and ensures it is in keeping with the existing system. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No need to sarcastic like that. I was simply stating what '''I''' thought the "convention" was, based on my experience as a frequent traveller. ] (]) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My sarcasm was not aimed at you, it was aimed at everyone (I don't discriminate) who didn't note the earlier posting within this page about convention on Misplaced Pages regarding the naming of these articles. They even (thoughtfully) provided a link. |
|
|
] (]) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Does this mean that the Flight numbers listed with leading 0s on the ] are incorrect? ] (]) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::It does not really matter, 38 is the same as 038. Airports and others use the zero because it makes their electronic displays and pages look good. Just because other articles use the zero then that is not reason to change this one. In wikipedia British Airways Flight BA038 and other variants all link to this page. But note the aircraft callsign is Speedbird 38 not Speedbird 038 good enough reason to leave it alone. ] (]) 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I understand, I'm just trying to help make the article as accurate as possible for the benefit of others. I realise that they are the same and to conform with other articles I've reverted the flight numbers back to 38. Just curious but would it be better to have links to articles written the same as the title of the article that's being linked to? ] (]) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Deletion... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that this article had been proposed for deletion. I see it has now been withdrawn. |
|
|
|
|
|
If this article is disputed again, may I say that it is welcome at http://plane.spottingworld.com, a wiki for articles jsut like this! Also, if there is info that people want to add that Misplaced Pages don't allow, feel free to add it here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
|
'''<font face="Verdana">]]</font>''' 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Reading the initial proposal of that AfD, the person needs to look at ], which was just a landing gear failure caught by the American news media. ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's a good point. Anyway, I just though i'd mention it, and this is '''NOT''' advertising! Just being helpful! |
|
|
::'''<font face="Verdana">]]</font>''' 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I tried to AFD that article when it was on ITN :-) I learned NEVER to try and AFD articles that are currently getting lots of news coverage. You'll never get them deleted. ] - ] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please, ] might be particularly helpful regarding < http://spottingworld.com >. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You, |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pertinent Fact == |
|
|
It would be interesting to know if the flight time was significantly longer than scheduled <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Reported on Pprune that flight was 20 mins early - thus making fuel exhaustion even less likely.] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Page Moves == |
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone objects to the naming of this article, please use the ] process. I have had to perform 4 page history merges today. PLEASE read ] before improperly moving this page. Thankyou. ] (]) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==references== |
|
|
Having to post this again! |
|
|
|
|
|
2 refs (#7 & #8) have been turned into interwiki links that do not reference the material used in the article. Can someone fix this please? 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fixed. The problem was that the "title" field in {{tl|cite news}} shouldn't be a wiki link (NB. "interwiki" means a link to a different Wikimedia project, e.g. the French Misplaced Pages), as it becomes the text of the external link. |
|
|
:Incidentally, I don't regard those as particularly helpful links anyway--if they linked to a particular story containing the expert quotes, that would be better, but they only link to the homepages of those news programmes. --] (]) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I put the ITV Early Evening News and Newsnight in. They are broadcast news reports. I made a silly error linking on the title field. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Format of references == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently removed all the breaks and whitespaces from the references in the lead section of the article, as I felt that they didn't improve the readability and editability (is that a word?) of the text. I just received from {{user|Daytona2}}, who said: "I think that you've made the edit code harder to read by unformating the inline citation templates and blurring the distinction between text and code." How do others feel about this? ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I personally prefer the white space, as long as it doesn't make any difference to how the text is displayed. It does make the format appear much clearer. -- ] (]) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree with Roleplayer here, the white space does make the code easier to edit and especially easier for 'newbies' to reuse IMHO ] (]) 08:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Piano Keys? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article mentions "piano keys" on the runway. Is this the same as the white ]? If so, "piano keys" should link to ] and runway should define that phrase. ] (]) 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: Runway threshold markings are known as piano keys in aviation slang. ] (]) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Sure ? I'm not and I added the phrase <g> ! -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 11:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
The METAR in force at the time of the accident was:- EGLL 171220Z 21014KT 180V240 9999 SCT008 BKN010 09/08 Q0997 TEMPO 21018G28KT 4000 RADZ BKN008 |
|
|
|
|
|
*EGLL = London Heathrow Airport |
|
|
*171220Z = Issued on the 17th day of the month at 1220 UTC/GMT |
|
|
*21014kt = Wind from 210deg at 14 knots |
|
|
*180V240 = wind direction variable from 180 to 240 degrees |
|
|
*9999 = visibility in excess of 10km |
|
|
*SCT008 = scattered clouds (3/8 to 4/8 of sky covered) at 800 feet |
|
|
*BKN010 = broken clouds (5/8 to 7/8 of sky covered) at 1000 feet |
|
|
*09/08 = temperature 9C, dew point 8C |
|
|
*Q0997 = QNH 997mb |
|
|
*TEMPO = Temporary changes |
|
|
*21018G28KT = wind from 210 degrees at 18kts, gusting to 28kts |
|
|
*4000 = visibility reducing to 4000 metres |
|
|
*RADZ = rain and drizzle |
|
|
*BKN008 = broken clouds at 800 feet |
|
|
|
|
|
The above would read:- |
|
|
|
|
|
"METAR - London Heathrow on 17th January at 1220 zulu (UTC/GMT), wind 210 degrees at 14 knots, variable 180 to 240 degrees. Visibility greater than 10 kilometres. Cloud, scattered 800 feet and broken at 1000 feet. Temperature 9 degrees celsius, Dewpoint 8 degrees celsius. Temporarily - wind 210 degress at 18 knots, gusting 28 knots with visibility reducing to 4000 metres in rain, drizzle and broken cloud at 800 feet." ] (]) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This info is published by a reliable source (BAA Heathrow) although it was reposted on a discussion thread in ], which genreally cannot be taken as a reliable source. Although this particular piece of info can be taken as being reliable. ] (]) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good info, thanks. I haven't been able to get on to PPRuNe at all - server too busy :-( -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 10:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I couldn't get into Pprune at all yesterday. Looking at the thread, there were over 7,000 on Pprune at one point.] (]) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Could this information be added to a sub page to be linked to from the reference, rather than asking for users to plough through this huge talk page to find it? It's very useful. -- ] (]) 13:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
{{done}} linked from ref at bottom of article. ] (]) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cool. -- ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Out of fuel?== |
|
|
Did the aircraft run out of fuel? ] (]) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are no reports to confirm this, and as has been pointed out above the flight was 20 minutes early so fuel was unlikely to be the issue. -- ] (]) 13:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Most likely cause would seem to lie with the avionics. Windshear, bird strike and lack of fuel have not been tuled out yet, terrorism has. Hopefully we'll know more once the AAIB reports tomorrow. ] (]) 13:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::A comparison on Pprune is being made to . Not that I'm saying that it was or wasn't the cause in this case.] (]) 14:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Just given out on News24 - preliminary AAIB report will say that both engines faild on approach. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Initial report released, info added to article. ] (]) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A/c did not run out of fuel - see '' 'No thrust' on stricken BA plane'' story in refs. ] (]) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Looks like a dog's dinner== |
|
|
The spacing cuased by using those socking great inverted commas around the quotations looks dreadful. ] (]) 09:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:At least it's clear that they are quotations. Much easier to format that way than indent & italics every paragraph! ] (]) 09:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::That was my thinking when I replaced them. As ever on WP, feel free to play around with them. There are other quotation tools. I'll reduce the quotation mark size. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 11:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have prosified it because there were so many duplicate and outdated statements. There was no need for all the statements. ] (]) 14:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Statements (Merged topics) |
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever it was that fiddled with all the statements has managed to lose the link to Willie Walsh's statement. Going back through the history I got <nowiki></nowiki> but can't seem to make it work :/. ] (]) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Link changed to website that has the statement by WW. ] (]) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The link seems to have turned into a deadlink, you seem to have fixed that. I converted the statements because as stated above, "it looked like a dogs dinner". ] (]) 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Discussion |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' the merging of information into text and removing the statements. Statements were much better as they had been revised with the small quotes. It was easy to see which statement was which, and who had made it. The way it is now is a mess! ] (]) 16:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Given that I am the one that has prosified the text, I think it is better this way. Whilst the prose isn't perfect, it can be edited. As it was though, Two-thirds of this article were a {{tlx|quotefarm}} which is not what an encyclopedia should be. An encyclopedia should be a summary of the most accurate, verifiable information available. As it was, most of the statements had little long-term relevance, especially the ambulance one and the initial BA statement beyond the fact that there was an incident. Willie Walsh's statement was of little use as well, it gave the number of casualties at "three". Yet, his praising of the pilots and crw is noteworthy and has been included. The statements are just knee-jerk reactions, in the long-term, they will be redundant to any AAIB report. ] (]) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK, how about having a subpage (like the METAR one) for the statements to be posted on in their revised (small quotes) form, and merging the info as suggested.] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Burkill or Birkhill?== |
|
|
Which is the correct spelling of the captain's name? ] (]) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Birkill per BBC1 6pm news. - ] (]) 18:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==AAIB Initial Report released== |
|
|
|
|
|
-- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== missing redirects == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is missing some redirects |
|
|
* ] - tail number |
|
|
* ] - IATA code/flight number |
|
|
* ] - ICAO code/flight number |
|
|
* ] - callsign/flight number |
|
|
- ] (]) 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Check the policy before doing so ] -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's there. Didn't you see them? ''alternate name'' and ''abbreviation'' |
|
|
::Ofcourse ''G-YMMM'' is the name of the aircraft involved... which is not an alternate name or abbreviation for the flight, but is the primary topic of the article (incident involving aircraft G-YMMM on landing at Heathrow, while on duty as conveyance assigned to BA038) |
|
|
::It's why ] and ] exist. ] (]) 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''G-YMMM''' is the ''registration'' of the aircraft. G- denotes it is registered in the UK, and YMMM is the actual UK registration - much the same as AB01CDE is a car registration. All aircraft take their identity from their ''construction number'' (c/n), which almost never changes, unlike a registration, which can change several times during the life of an aircraft. ] (]) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It is however, the registration number at the time of the crash. Just as there are other BA038 flights, with other planes, but this particular flight on this particular day with this particular plane crashed. And the tail number is featured in some news coverage. ] (]) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The only one of those that has any merit is '''BA038''', but I'd suggest leaving it for now. Once there is widespread use of BA038 in the media that is the time to create the redirect.] (]) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== General comments on article content and development == |
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking for myself, I view articles such as this differently to that of the WP guidelines and policies. Due to WP having such a high ranking in search engines I feel that it's initial role in an incident such as this is to provide information to friends and relatives of those involved rather than to offer encyclopedic content. Once the need for such information has reduced, as I believe is the case now, it can be converted into an encyclopedic article by summarising the ] findings. |
|
|
|
|
|
I added the quotes from all the major parties that people would expect to issue statements and would want to read. It is right and proper that they are now removed as many of them are unhelpful public relations speak, but needed to be included for completeness. The only information worth quoting now, is insightful information from the crew, the manufacturers or the AAIB. |
|
|
|
|
|
A useful article describing the transformation of such articles is ]. It may well be that the article in it's final form requires only a few paragraphs. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To be honest I started that process yesterday, when the article was just a few hours old - changing all the language from present tense to past tense. -- ] (]) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Some factual queries... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently the plane passed 6 metres over the A30. Does anyone local have the height of the streetlights there? I seem to remember they are rather close to that height! |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, apparently the PM was waiting for his flight in the airport while passsing the end of the runway. I wasn't there, but it can't be both! |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have driven down the A30 on the perimeter of the airport and the street lights are extremely low there, though I can't give an exact height. I don't understand the second query - yes Gordon Brown's flight was delayed as a result of the incident. Where's the confusion? -- ] (]) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::''The plane passed approximately 6 metres (25 ft) above passing cars on the A30 road (Southern Perimeter), including the car of the prime minister, Gordon Brown,'' Later on it says that he was delayed on his plane... There is the confusion. ] (]) 01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ah I see what you mean now. What we have is two verifiable references stating two completely different versions of events. Given the confusion of reports in the early hours of any disaster, I'm going to go with the most recent, that he was in his car at the time. -- ] (]) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The article says that Gordon Brown was on a flight to both India & China? How can this be possible & also the references for that sentence only suggest he was going to China (or at least he was going there first). |
|
|
"Gordon Brown was on his way to Heathrow for a flight to China and India at the time." My suggestion would just be to mention China. ] (]) 12:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that Gordon Brown being at the airport is not really notable, he was just one of thousands of others at the airport who were delayed. It would only be notable if somebody had an article on Gordon Browns trip to China!. ] (]) 12:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ], ] == |
|
|
This morning, on ] I saw this ]. Later, on there, & ], I'd heard that there had been no deaths, no particular injuries. |
|
|
|
|
|
&, I heard, most of the people had not known that they had crashed until they had been told to evacuate. Several of the thoughts I'd had were of the ways to honor such a pilot. The article should make it very clear what that video showed of the wings. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually their link is to ], not Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, "]", maybe each ] gets a variation; I've spent a lot of time checking: |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is what is under the word "]" in the version that I get: < http://try.alottoolbars.com/tb/reference/reference_dictionary.php?aff_id=googlefour >. |
|
|
|
|
|
:That is deception, period. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is no deception on the part of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is not directly involved with that site and we cannot control what they put on their page. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Okay, nothing has meaning,... If that's policy,... |
|
|
:::] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== There's an extremely high probability that the plane was out of fuel. == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Reported on Pprune that flight was 20 mins early - thus making fuel exhaustion even less likely" FYI: the fact that the plane landed 20 minutes early in no way absolves the possibility that the plane ran out of fuel. On a flight that long, the aircraft could have likely encountered a weather system requiring higher power settings to ascend, maintain airspeed, etc. Delays are costly to airlines. Airlines also do not like to have their aircraft carry large quantities of excess fuel as it increases fuel consumption. The odds of two Rolls Royce jet engines (or any two jet engines, for that matter) failing simultaneously are astronomical. Also, an investigator noted "significant" fuel leakage from the aircraft. The plane could have been "out" of fuel but still had a significant amount of fuel, possible hundreds of gallons, sloshing around inside of the tanks. (a 777 holds 45,220 gallons of fuel) If the plane crash landed with the required reserve amount of fuel on board, the fuel leakage would have been enormous, not "significant". I would be shocked to find the investigation conclude any outcome besides fuel shortage. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: On the other hand... there were no reports that the plane had gone through any bad weather etc. Therefore I would guess (which is what we are doing), that it hadn't run out of fuel. Unless BA are in the habit of putting so little fuel on planes that nearly every flight is nearly dropping out of the sky! Let alone the pilots forgetting to monitor the fuel (which is unlikely, given standard in-flight procedures), or forgetting to notice the fuel shortage warning alarms during what was otherwise a routine flight. |
|
|
|
|
|
: The odds of two jet engines failing is indeed very low; however the possibility of computer failure on these new 'clever' fly-by-wire jets is not so low. I would guess some electrical failure, maybe related to landing gear activation, causing communications failure between cockpit and engines. But that is a total guess too :) |
|
|
|
|
|
: A final point about fuel leakage. 'Significant' might be the same as 'enormous', depending on who says it. Also, if the wing was punctured where it joins the body of the plane, and if the wing was tilting down a bit... then only one wing worth of fuel would leak, and actually, depending on the point of puncture, only a small amount of fuel may leak out, the rest remaining in the wing.] (]) 08:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: http://en.wikipedia.org/Gimli_glider --- just sayin.. --] (]) 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: "The odds of two Rolls Royce jet engines (or any two jet engines, for that matter) failing simultaneously are astronomical." If you are asserting the chance of them failing simultaniously from independent internal failure, then I would agree. However, it is entirely possible for both engines to fail due to upstream failures, for example, in the avionics package. Indeed, you are making such an assertation yourself, by arguing for fuel exhaustion. However, fuel exhaustion is only one of a number of ways in which both engines could fail to respond. ] (]) 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Part 2 <small>(moved from bottom) ] (]) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Buckethed and Toby Douglass both provide excellent points in their response to my post. However, as noted, until the investigation is complete, we are all just guessing at this point. It should be noted that whenever an airplane crashes, the vast majority of the time it's due to human error, and the vast majority of the time the human error turns out to be pilot error. Far and away the number one pilot error when an airplane crashes is...you guessed it! Fuel exhaustion. Buckethed also noted: "The odds of two jet engines failing is indeed very low; however the possibility of computer failure on these new 'clever' fly-by-wire jets is not so low" As a matter of fact, the odds of a computer failure on a critical system on an airliner is EXTREMELY low. In an effort to take any nationalism out of it, I'm American and the odds of an electrical failure related to a critical system on an Airbus are just as low as it would be on a Boeing product...that is, extremely low. On the same note, the odds of a Rolls Royce jet engine failing are just as slim as a General Electric engine failing. As we guess back and forth as to what happened, the main point of my previous post is just to assert that the fact that the plane (supposedly) landed 20 minutes early in no way means that the plane could not have run out of fuel. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:But we are not the AAIB, so we do not know any of the facts. This is an encyclopedia not a forum for speculation. We can only accept ] information which none of this can be. Can we stop this discussion now please. Regards. ] (]) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just to support ] this page is to discuss the article it is NOT a discussion board on the accident. ] (]) 23:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recentism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't this article a little overkill? I mean, this incident will likely not be remembered. As for comparion, another aircraft type would only have a short sentence about the first hull loss incident, not a full length article of its own, with its "could have beens" and "what ifs". I was wondering the same thing, when Sky News covered the story the whole day when it happened. --] (]) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Au contraire! This incident will most likely be remembered as the first hull loss incident. It may also be more notable once the full AAIB report has been released (end of year?) and all the causes are known and published. The "could have beens" and "what ifs" are kept at a minimum in the article, and referenced. Once the Full Report is issued, they won't matter. ] (]) 10:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Perhaps other articles are underkill. The televisual propensity to forget yesterdays news is extremely unhealthy. ] (]) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Do you want to stick w/ "]"? Intriguing choice, that there had been reports, some of the reports, true or not, that most of them were not even aware that they had crashed,.... &, that it had reminded me of ], We. 19th July 1989 {< http://flyertalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-537797.html >}. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The article should make it very clear what that video had shown of the wings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You, |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 13:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm fully aware who Al Haynes is, (and Eric Moody too, if we're going to start bandying names about). Haynes had plenty of time to assess what he could and couldn't do. Coward & Burkill didn't have that luxury. ] (]) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Can we please stick with the topic at hand? There has been a fair amount of random discussion on this talk page over the past couple of days. The ''only'' purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article and how to improve it: not to discuss the subject of the article; not to speculate etc. Please take a look at ]. Thank you. ]] 13:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I had been advocating content, regarding the video,.... that there should be such a description. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I did not know, until that comment, about John_Coward; but, ] leads elsewhere. Nor had I thought of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'd mentioned Mr. Haynes due to the "recentism" attack, the "overkill" attack. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Thank You f/ mentioning Mr. Moody, Mr. Coward. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::] now has a link pointing people in the direction of the correct thread if they want the airman. ] (]) 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For the First Officer flying the aircraft that crashed at Heathrow on January 17 2008 see British Airways Flight 38 |
|
|
|
|
|
]: Whereas I recall watching ]], that would be impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The FOHE fix. == |
|
] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 16:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article should mention that the problem with the FOHE was determined to be that the heat exchange tubes projected past the end plates a couple of millimeters, allowing super cold fuel to prevent heat conduction from melting ice accumulated on and across the ends of the tubes. The fix for the FOHE was a redesign that made the ends of the tubes flush with the end plates so that ice would contact the hot end plate and melt. ] (]) 07:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
: |
|
|
|
:Thanks, ]. Do you have a good source for that? ] (]) 07:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's in this documentary on the incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxEaeUW7yso ] (]) 00:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 600 feet and 2 miles == |
|
== Aerial approach end photo added == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
The AAIB report mentions that the power loss occured at "600 ft and 2 miles". Note that as the airplane was in flight, these are ]s, not ]s. -- ] ]</sup> 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I thought it was a good idea to include this rather iconic photo from the Met police. I also moved the pic of the intact aircraft up, next to the Aircraft section. The map of the crash site and the aerial photo are now roughly next to the Accident section. ] (]) 01:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
*'''Agree''', but the BBC are quoting it as though it is statute miles. ] (]) 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::And confusingly, although the plane is flying, I believe the 600 ft will be above ground (not above sea level) as the plane was on final approach. Hopefully the AAIB will be more clear in their next update. -- ] ]</sup> 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: As far as WP goes, unless you can point us to a place where the AAIB defines such a default, it's contentious and should therefore be reported exactly as they said and not interpreted. That's why I changed it from nm to m yesterday. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Have you looked at any of the AAIB bulletins - they usually have a glossary or terms in each report. I can't check myself as my old pooter takes a dislike to PDF files and just freezes. ] (]) 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Heads up - this picture might have to go. It seems the Metropolitan Police don't participate in the Open Government License. There's a discussion (not a !vote or request for consensus or anything) in the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump if you care to join, but it doesn't look good for keeping the image, despite its appearance in the AAIB crash report. In fact, the crash report itself might not be covered under the OGL. Gah! ] (]) 04:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::The AAIB glosaary gives '''nm''' to be the abbreviation for ''nautical miles''. As this abbreviation was not given in the initial report, and nor was the term ''nautical miles'' used, I believe the common use of miles as ''statute'' miles should be assumed for the time being. regards, ] (]) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I have personally nominated this image for speedy deletion from the Wikimedia Commons because I have received verification from the Copyright Team at The National Archives of the United Kingdom that the image copyright is owned by the Metropolitam Police, that they are a Crown body, but they are specifically exempt from OGL licensing. Moreover, if a license were to be applied for and granted, it would not meet the needs of Wikimedia. So I'm removing it from the article, and that sucks. The good news is that they also verified that the crash report is OGL 3.0, so that's good! ] (]) 22:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
This is a bit like someone in the US reading an article from the UK about a pint of liquid and assuming it means 473 ml rather than 568 ml just because Imperial pint is not specified. The aviation industry uses nautical miles by default when they refer to miles and they tend to specify statute miles. For example, the aviation media, such as from ''Flight International'' interprets the same bulletin as 2 nautical miles. The argument is not major, as the difference in distance is not huge. This will likely be clarified Sunday or Monday with the release of a further report. -- ] ]</sup> 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Ok, let's try that again. I just uploaded a smaller, lower-resolution version of this photo to the WP server under a fair use rationale (instead of Wikimedia, who can't use the fair use rationale) and put it back in the article. I think it's a pretty good rationale. I'd rather have a better photo, but this one is better than none. ] (]) 08:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== British Airways Flight 38 == |
|
== Image size? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've added a few more images, and I've made them all the same width as the 2 images above, but how big should they be? The ones above have "|upright=1.35|", so that's what I did with the 3 I just added, but it seems kinda big. Is there a standard consensus on image size? ] (]) 05:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
British Airways Flight 38 is, presumably, a scheduled flight which flies every day. Unless they now withdraw the number (presumably unlikely as this wasn't a fatal crash, the article title is rather incorrect. The same goes for ''all'' articles on plane crashes which use flight number. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I "boldly" adjusted the sizes based on a few other air accident articles I saw. I think this looks better. If ] / ] has standards for image sizes, please revert or fix this and let me know. I've been adding images lately. ] (]) 04:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
The lead says: |
|
|
:British Airways Flight 38 (callsign Speedbird 38) was a scheduled flight between Beijing Capital International Airport and London Heathrow Airport that crash landed at 12:42 (GMT) on 17 January 2008 on approach to Heathrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Not unique to Trent 800 == |
|
No. British Airways Flight 38 is a scheduled flight between Beijing Capital International Airport and London Heathrow Airport. A plane flying as BA 38 crashed on 17 Jan; that doesn't mean that the crash is suddenly the primary use of "British Airways Flight 38". --] (]) 23:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Clowder of Cats}} I noticed you'd made an edit almost a month ago to the lead of the ] article, restricting the FOHE problem to the Trent 800 series engines only. That's not the case with FAA regulations. They ascribed a similar mechanism to a failure in an A-330 with series 700 Trents, and their mandated FOHE redesign covered Trent series 500, 700, and 800. I rather crudely appended this information to the end of the lead in the BA 38 article. I'd like you to have a look and see what you think. I find EASA regulations bewildering. I understand what the FAA mandated, and if it's different from what the AAIB found and what EASA implemented, then the lead should maybe stay as it is. If the AAIB and EASA were in agreement with the FAA concerning the 500, 700, and 800 series all being affected, I think that information should be blended in a more concise form. Thoughts? ] (]) 00:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:You are partially right but on Misplaced Pages the agreed terminology (by concensus) for aircraft accidents and incident articles is to use the form as used in this article. If you disagree you can propose a move of this article and all the other hundred or so accident articles. Please read ] particularly related to moves that may be controversial. ] (]) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with ]. The reason we can accept British Airways Flight 38 as an article is because: '''i)''' It prevents longer article names, having to specify a date etc. and '''ii)''' The likelihood of Flight 38 having another accident on another day is pretty damn unlikely. ] (]) 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] thanks for pointing that out. You're right, there is a separate for the FOHE on the 500s and 700s, to which I didn't see mention in the final report, but it is there in one paragraph at the end of §1.18.11.3. We can work this more clearly into the article body, as clearly impact of that scope to such a variety of engine types is of notable importance to the article. I'll aim to put some time into this shortly and let you know here, so you can review. ] (]) 13:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Autopilot == |
|
|
|
::Thanks. I like the idea of moving the discussion to the body, but maybe we should still leave mention in the lead that the accident led to design modifications in ''some'' Rolls Royce Trent engines? I think a vague mention like that in the lead is appropriate because one of the major notability requirements for air accidents is that they lead to change in the industry. Of course notability is already satisfied with the hull loss and... I don't remember the other criteria. But shouldn't statements establishing notability like that be in the lead? That's my inclination, just a brief, vague statement, with more detail in the article text. The way I left the lead was awkward, with undue weight on the redesign mandates, so it should definitely be trimmed. ] (]) 19:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
Can anyone clarify in the article the role of the autopilot? Reports say that the autopilot was engaged. Does this mean it was landing automatically or does it mean that the plane was assisting the pilot? I think this is a significant point and should be able to be answered by someone with relevant knowledge of flying the plane without speculating. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I believe it was the ] that was engaged. It basically maintains a constant speed and frees the pilots from manually controlling the throttles. I'll see about adding to the article. -- ] ]</sup> 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
The article should mention that the problem with the FOHE was determined to be that the heat exchange tubes projected past the end plates a couple of millimeters, allowing super cold fuel to prevent heat conduction from melting ice accumulated on and across the ends of the tubes. The fix for the FOHE was a redesign that made the ends of the tubes flush with the end plates so that ice would contact the hot end plate and melt. Bizzybody (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was a good idea to include this rather iconic photo from the Met police. I also moved the pic of the intact aircraft up, next to the Aircraft section. The map of the crash site and the aerial photo are now roughly next to the Accident section. Dcs002 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, let's try that again. I just uploaded a smaller, lower-resolution version of this photo to the WP server under a fair use rationale (instead of Wikimedia, who can't use the fair use rationale) and put it back in the article. I think it's a pretty good rationale. I'd rather have a better photo, but this one is better than none. Dcs002 (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I've added a few more images, and I've made them all the same width as the 2 images above, but how big should they be? The ones above have "|upright=1.35|", so that's what I did with the 3 I just added, but it seems kinda big. Is there a standard consensus on image size? Dcs002 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
