Talk:Munich air disaster

Untitled

This article's URL is given in todays issue of the magazine "This is Lancashire"

Minor Edit

Just removed "This has also been recorded by Hanky Park http://www.hankypark.co.uk". Obvious advertising, inapropirate on a page as sensative as this.

---

Perhaps someone ought to add Captain Thain's prosecution by the German authorities which rumbled on for nearly a decade after the disaster. Dbiv 14:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What areas need expansion I will do it.

I have changed the opening para under 'Cause' to reflect that Thain aborted the first two takeoff attempts due to boost surging, not the weather. Quite an important fact to get right! John

Just a bit of extra info:

The boost surging was a problem with the early Centaurus installation on the Ambassador in which under some conditions the mixture to some cylinders became over-rich leading to a momentary slight drop in power. This was made worse with increasing altitude where the air is thinner and Munich-Riem was (and presumably still is!) at 1,700 ft. Because of this, Thain had to use rather more of the runway than normal and although the runway had been cleared of snow to some extent by previous aircraft landing and taking off, only on the mid section. The surging caused Thain to run into the area of raw, deep slush towards the end of the runway which slowed the aircraft at the critical moment when it was too late to abort the take off, and making it impossible to fly-off due to the lack of airspeed. The Ambassador subsequently ran off the runway a short distance before hitting first a fence and then the house of a Mr Berger, which took off the port wing.

BTW, there was a drama-doc on the Munich Air Distaster on BBC 1 about an hour ago. I managed to sit through a few minutes of it and decided to give it a miss! Ian Dunster 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The drama last night could have been very good had it not been for some ignorance in the writing.

I do think it is a good idea to create a film depicting the TRUE events. This would require excessive help from the survivors and an entirely BRITISH cast. No ridiculous effects or Hollywood nonsense. And should be released only when EVERYTHING has been accurately portrayed according to the survivors' accounts. All cast must research thoroughly and read about the lives of their characters.

It is important for people to understand the tragedy and never forget it. Shaneo619 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The documentary did seem a bit 'overdone', the banter just seemed wrong, however, I notice it did mention that someone had taken pictures of people on the fuselage of the Ambassador which seemed to nullify the claims against Captain Thain. Douglasnicol 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The current (2012) series of Air Crash Investigation has a much better programme, a very well done one in fact, about the accident which you may find on YouTube if you go looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Move page to correspond with precedent?

Hello there! I am working on converting the plane crash articles to conform to the longstanding Wikipedia precedent that the named format is <airline> <flight num>. For example, I would normally just go ahead and rename this article to British European Airways Flight BE609. But, looking at the page history, I see someone has already done that and been reverted? May I ask way?

If there is a big reason to keep the Munich air disaster title, I would like to hear it -- otherwise, I intend to change this article to conform to precedent. Thanks! --Jaysweet 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it should be renamed. As WP grows ever larger, standardization is essential and contributes to a professional appearance. Akradecki 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Akradecki, I believe I remember that name from the AfD for the Rochester air crash, where I promised to make a similar name change when the AfD ends ;) Sounds like we are very like-minded on this issue! The process is frustrating, as it turns out many of the non-standard articles are like that because the flight number is unavailable. But, slowly I am chipping away...

Since this one here was changed and reverted once before, I'm going to wait until tomorrow before moving it, in order to give people a chance to weigh in. I don't want to prematurely start a revert war ;) --Jaysweet 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, it appears because the redirect has a page history, I can't do the move without an admin's assistance. I just put in the request, but it looks like they have a 10-day backlog on move requests. Might be a while... heh... --Jaysweet 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

"Google test" results are worth noting:

Results 1 - 10 of about 34,700 for "Munich air disaster".
Results 1 - 10 of about 58 for "British European Airways Flight BE609".

--Serge 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong Oppose The Munich air disaster is a historic tragedy in football, and is commemorated under that name, not only on plaques in Manchester and Munich, but also on various commemorative sites [1]. A Gogle search for "Munich air disaster" creates 35,500 hits, a search for "British European Airways Flight BE609" gives 58. Similarly, a Newsbank search for "Munich air disaster" gives 842 hits, and zero for "British European Airways Flight BE609". And finally, a headline-only search for European news sources on Lexus-Nexus gives 37 for "Munich air disaster", and zero for "British European Airways Flight BE609". This is a standing historical term, and renaming it would be akin to renaming the Hand of God goal to "1-0, 1986 FIFA World Cup quarterfinal Argentina-England". ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Adhering to naming conventions that produce contrived titles with names that are rarely if ever (see google test results above) used to refer to the subject of the article should never take precendence over titles that are consistent with WP:NC(CN). --Serge 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yikes!!! 8o I don't feel that strongly about it, so I'm considering withdrawing the move request. --Jaysweet 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Although, I have to say, I'm sort of glad I brought it up -- the first time the move was reverted, no explanation was given. Now we have a documented reason on the Talk page why this article defies the standard convention. Actually, I'm satisifed with that. Withdrawing the request now...

I have relinked "Munich air disaster" to this page in view of above discussion, The Munich air disaster is synonymous with this incident: the 1960 accident is not the Munich air disaster. I will be inserting a link to that accident on main page in a few minutes. ta--Bilbo B 10:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The science behind the crash

It is not mentioned anywhere in the article that the real cause of the crash (which was not realised at the time) is that the drag from the slush increases by the square of the speed. Thus 4x faster = 16x more drag. This is the real reason that G-ALZU failed to become airborne. With the 50th anniversary coming up, this article is likely to feature on the "on this day" section. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lawless

• John Lawless a footballer has been sacked by his club for mocking the Munich air disaster during a game against Manchester United .(Manchester Evening News) Is this worth mentioning in the article? Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really worth a mention, seeing as the match was actually against F.C. United of Manchester. – PeeJay 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to how teams travel

I've heard it said that this event made teams realize the "eggs in one basket" risk of putting a whole team on one flight, and it's therefore now normal practice (as a result of the Munich disaster) to book no more than a couple of players on each of several flights. Is this true? It's the first thing I think of in connection with this event. swyves190.45.183.236 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that suggestion before. In fact, I find it quite unlikely. – PeeJay 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

most teams still travel together in one flight. There may be others who did what you said, but i do not think it is as prevalent as compared to the usual all-together flights. Lpjz290 (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to the TV section

Sky Sports aired a tribute featuring past and present United players and Sir Alex

Steve Bruce, Eric Cantona, Mark Hughes, Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs and Sir Alex and another player who I can't remember off the top of my head were featured talking about the event and how it changed the club and football before talking about the 58 teams as the flowers of English football

Linked here - Flowers of Manchester

Notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.249.149 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That just looks like a few United icons reading out "The Flowers of Manchester". As I recall, it was broadcast in the lead-up to the Manchester derby on 10 Feb 08. Not notable, IMO. – PeeJay 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How many people died?

The top section has this language

23 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash. The injured were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where 16 survived.

Later on, there is a list of the dead, which gives 23 died, 21 survived. Would it be better if the top section said

20 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash. The injured were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where 3 more died, resulting in 21 survivors.

Any comments? Gorillatheape (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was actually 21 people who were killed instantly, as is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead, and two more died in hospital. Also, surely all 23 fatalities were as a result of the crash, so to say "20 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash" would be incorrect on that count too. I do see where you're coming from, though, and a minor re-write would probably be prudent! The facts are that 21 were killed instantly, 21 were taken to hospital where two more died, and two (Harry Gregg and Bill Foulkes) were unscathed. – PeeJay 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry PeeJay, but according to the article, out of the 23 fatalities, Frank Swift died on his way to hospital, Duncan Edwards survived for 15 days and Kenneth Rayment survived for three weeks. Ergo, 21 cannot have died "instantly". Moreover, is there any evidence that all 20 who died on the plane died instantly? Please explain or fix this apparent contradiction. Viewfinder (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In Air Disasters, Stanley Stewart states (p74) that "Little did the survivors know that of the 44 souls on board, comprising 38 passengers and six crew, 20 had already lost their lives". He further states (p76) "...on clearing the litter young Ken Morgans was found, unconscious but alive and breathing. That brought the total number of survivors to 24, but sadly not for long. News came through that Frank Swift, the News of the World reporter severely burned in the accident had died of his injuries". Therefore 20 killed in the accident, one died shortly after reaching hospital, Edwards died 15 days after the accident and Rayment died 21 days after the accident. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right; I'd forgotten about Swifty. – PeeJay 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I just clarify, Frank Swift may have been DoA at the hospital., but he was alive when rescued from the crashed aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Times archive articles online

In case anyone is interested in checking for extra information, there are a couple of Times articles from 1958 currently online:

Stricken Football Club Aim to Carry On

Manchester United in Air Crash Saint|swithin 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll Never Walk Alone

I'm just watching "Secrets of the Pop Song" on BBC2, and they've just claimed that United fans sang You'll Never Walk Alone in tribute to the fallen Babes at one of the first games after the disaster. Can anyone find a source to corroborate this? – PeeJay 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll Never Walk Alone is our song! - Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk - September 11, 2004.

Good enough?
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but I've just done a bit of research myself, and apparently there's no evidence to corroborate Mrs Hardwick's claim. I can believe that a few of her friends from the operatic society had a sing-song together, but for the entire crowd to start singing a song from a 13-year-old musical seems a little far-fetched. There was a book called "Celtic United" released in 2007 that repeated Mrs Hardwick's claim, but this link suggests that she may have been exaggerating in 2004. With that in mind, is it worth mentioning this if only a handful of people sang it? – PeeJay 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that we shouldn't mention it.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was leaning the same way. I won't bother including it. – PeeJay 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)