| Revision as of 18:50, 16 October 2004 editRenamed user CnELGrVopW (talk | contribs)7,663 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:18, 9 November 2004 edit undoMoriori (talk | contribs)22,910 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| -------- | -------- | ||
| Page moved back. All our air disaster entries in Misplaced Pages that I know of are named after the flight name. There is no need to add "disaster" to that unless we want to disambiguate a full article about the flight from an article about the disaster. I don't foresee us ever having a full article on the flight, so there is no need to have the longer name. Keep it simple. --] 21:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) | Page moved back. All our air disaster entries in Misplaced Pages that I know of are named after the flight name. There is no need to add "disaster" to that unless we want to disambiguate a full article about the flight from an article about the disaster. I don't foresee us ever having a full article on the flight, so there is no need to have the longer name. Keep it simple. --] 21:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) | ||
| ==Why I am again amending the article== | |||
| ] continues to remove any reference to the bomb causing catastrophic structural failure to Pan Am Flight 103, saying investigators called (it) a "catastrophic systems failure". I'm not sure which particular investigators he means, but whatever, the logical sequence has to be catastrophic structural failure and any consequent/coincident developments. The ] produced '''Aircraft Accident Report No 2/90 (EW/C1094),''' the '''report on the accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988'''. You can read the report . | |||
| '''''Nowhere''''' does the report mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure". But is does state the following: | |||
| * "The combined effect of the direct and indirect explosive forces was to '''destroy the structural integrity''' of the forward fuselage". | |||
| * "The problem of reducing the vulnerability of commercial aircraft to explosive damage ............. those damage mechanisms which appear to have contributed to the '''catastrophic structural failure''' of Flight PA103 are identified" | |||
| * "The indirect explosive effects produced '''significant structural damage''' in areas remote from the site of the explosion". | |||
| * ".....it is therefore essential that means are sought to reduce the vulnerability of commercial '''aircraft structures''' to explosive damage" | |||
| * "There were no indications that the crew had attempted to react to rapid decompression or loss of control or that any emergency preparations had been actioned prior to the '''catastrophic disintegration'''." | |||
| I say again, nowhere does the report mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure" | |||
| Therefore, I am again amending the article to include the fact that the bomb caused a catastrophic structural failure That's why it fell out of the sky and everyone died, including the pilots. If all the systems in the world had been available and '''''had not''''' failed, everyone on board would still be dead because their aircraft had totally disintegrated. But of course they did fail, '''''as a result''''' of the aircraft suffering catastrophic structural failure. Subsequent gyrations and odd behaviour of bits of the aircraft are exactly that, '''''subsequent''''' to the disintegration. They have absolutely '''''nothing''''' to do with the loss of control.] 09:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:18, 9 November 2004
For Googlebot: Lockerbie disaster, Lockerbie air disaster
In Britain this is usually referred to as the 'Lockerbie disaster'. I was tempted to move this page to that but, i'm wondering if it is usually referred to as 'Pan Am 103' in the US?
Lockerbie at the moment redirects to this page, which means the reference to Lockerbie found on this page refers to itself. I plan to make the page listed as Lockerbie have some brief information about the town and refer to the disaster. Is this acceptable to US readers? Mintguy 17:10 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)
- The little TV news reporter in my head is saying "Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988". Certainly the particular phrase "Lockerbie disaster" is unfamiliar. --Brion 16:21 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
- I've always known it as "Pan Am 103" too. A redirect from from Lockerbie disaster would be appropriate. --Stephen Gilbert 00:42 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
It's usually "Lockerbie bombing" rather than "Lockerbie disaster". (The linked Google searches confirm this.) --Zundark 09:45 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
- I'm suprised by this. Putting site:uk into the search reduces the differential, but it still puts Lockerbie bombing ahead. Mintguy
- It's called The Lockerbie disaster by the Edinburgh Law Review. Mintguy
There was no bombing in Lockerbie and the largest disaster occurred on the plane itself, not the ground. The bomb was on the plane and my American ears have never heard the event called the Lockerbie disaster or bombing. Lockerbie was where (most of) the plane happened to crash. It was just an extra bonus for the terrorists that it crashed into a populated area. --mav
- Mav that's actually quite offensive! 11 Lockerbie residents died! Mintguy
- The whole event was quite offensive. BTW 259 people died that were on the plane. --mav
- I'm well aware of that. I was referrng to your comment before you cleaned it up with an edit. I'm glad you did that. Mintguy
- could we somehow rewrite the opening to mention the alternative name, Lockerbie disaster please. It really is known as "lockerbie" in the UK, mav -- Tarquin 13:01, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Just to confuse matters, the memorials in Lockerbie (of which there are at least 3) call it the Lockerbie Air Disaster 2 in the cemetary , and large stone in Sherwood Crescent where many of the local victims lived (I can't find a decent picture of this, but I've seen it on TV). Plus what appears to be a bench with the words "Lockerbie Air Crash Disaster" from a BBC report Mintguy 14:33, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I never doubted what this event is called in the UK. And you could have edited this article mentioning the alternate name in fewer words that it took for you to complain. This is a wiki if you recall. ;-) Alas, I did the work for you. --mav
I have never, ever heard the phrase "Pan Am flight 103" in Australia. I'm very surprised that this is at such an uninformative and obscure title. Tannin
- So you are not familiar with the downing of that fight then? In the US it is known as "Pam Am flight 103" and that is where the article was originally. Thus in order to respect our American/British usage rule, the article stays where it is. --mav 23:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Of course I'm familiar with the Lockerbie disaster. You'd have to live in an iron lung not to have heard of it. The B/A usage rule is a good one, but I wonder if it's appropriate here - the event did taker place in the UK, after all. But in the interests of peace and quiet, and in the knowledge that there will never be an answer to this one to satisfy speakers of English and American languages, I guess we are stuck with it, unfortunately. Tannin
- the reason I didn't make the edit mav is that I could see how to put it in where it now is, but I was *convinced* there was a way to recast the first paragraph to give both names in the opening sentence. I just couldn't see it though. :( -- Tarquin 23:13, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- As the relative of two of the ground victims, I didn't even know the flight number until I was poking around here - every calls it Lockerbie in the UK and Ireland. Although I see this debate did end ages ago... Kiand 18:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Page moved back. All our air disaster entries in Misplaced Pages that I know of are named after the flight name. There is no need to add "disaster" to that unless we want to disambiguate a full article about the flight from an article about the disaster. I don't foresee us ever having a full article on the flight, so there is no need to have the longer name. Keep it simple. --mav 21:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Why I am again amending the article
User:SlimVirgin continues to remove any reference to the bomb causing catastrophic structural failure to Pan Am Flight 103, saying investigators called (it) a "catastrophic systems failure". I'm not sure which particular investigators he means, but whatever, the logical sequence has to be catastrophic structural failure and any consequent/coincident developments. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch produced Aircraft Accident Report No 2/90 (EW/C1094), the report on the accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988. You can read the report here.
Nowhere does the report mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure". But is does state the following:
- "The combined effect of the direct and indirect explosive forces was to destroy the structural integrity of the forward fuselage".
- "The problem of reducing the vulnerability of commercial aircraft to explosive damage ............. those damage mechanisms which appear to have contributed to the catastrophic structural failure of Flight PA103 are identified"
- "The indirect explosive effects produced significant structural damage in areas remote from the site of the explosion".
- ".....it is therefore essential that means are sought to reduce the vulnerability of commercial aircraft structures to explosive damage"
- "There were no indications that the crew had attempted to react to rapid decompression or loss of control or that any emergency preparations had been actioned prior to the catastrophic disintegration."
I say again, nowhere does the report mention "catastrophic systems failure" or even "systems failure"
Therefore, I am again amending the article to include the fact that the bomb caused a catastrophic structural failure That's why it fell out of the sky and everyone died, including the pilots. If all the systems in the world had been available and had not failed, everyone on board would still be dead because their aircraft had totally disintegrated. But of course they did fail, as a result of the aircraft suffering catastrophic structural failure. Subsequent gyrations and odd behaviour of bits of the aircraft are exactly that, subsequent to the disintegration. They have absolutely nothing to do with the loss of control.Moriori 09:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)