Talk:2013 Glasgow helicopter crash

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash at the Reference desk.

Aviation: Rotorcraft / Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Pilot Error?

The AAIB report does not use those words, and nor should we. The AAIB do not determine blame, only establish facts. It will be the legal process (Fatal Accident Enquiry) that establishes blame and until that has concluded, we should not be bleating about pilot error like the poorer quality media.

Actually it would be very surprising if the FAI does not conclude that it was pilot error, but judging the outcome of a legal tribunal before it is happened is just plain wrong, and maybe even illegal, as it can prejudice the outcome.

What is fact is that the fuel pumps were switched off, which can be due to things like errors in the pilot's training, plus his firm belief that the fuel system was designed such that there would be a decent time interval between the first and second engines flaming out, while in fact there was a flaw in the design of the system which prevented that happening. So he was very busy indeed after the first flameout, and quite unprepared for the second so soon. All in the report.

The report quite effectively castigates the manufacturer and operator, and in many cases, what the media like to scream about as pilot error happens because of the coincidence of systematic errors in training, documentation, procedures and other factors. The pilot does not have full and intimate knowledge of the inner workings of every aircraft system.

My only question about the pilot's actions is, why did he not establish autorotation within the very short time interval required? Was there insufficient immediate indication that the second engine had flamed out? Was he trapped by incorrect training or inadequate aircraft systems? Or did he establish autorotation correctly and aim for the best landing site, only to be deceived by the RAD ALT, or lack thereof, into commencing the landing flare at several hundred feet and promptly stalling the rotors? The AAIB don't and can't know, and nor can we. The verdict from the FAI will be pure conjecture and best guesses based on what can be proved, and it may well be wrong. A "black box" would have enabled that to be resolved.

We should under no circumstances be making accusations of pilot error until it is shown to be legally established as such. I therefore very strongly recommend that all such references be removed from the article, for now. This is Wikipedia, not the Daily Mail, or worse, the Sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger99 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret report

Today's addition of a so-called "secret report" needs discussion. Firstly, is the Scottish Sun a reliable source? If this story has any credibility, then I would expect it to be picked up by better sources than this one. Otherwise we should stick to the AAIB's findings. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not the SS is a reliable source, but if so, it will no doubt publish a correction in the near future. A reliable source would want to correct its assertion that the AAIB deleted the information that water contamination can cause over-reading of the fuel quantities, and point out that the possibility was covered in detail (final report pp50-57). And that no water was found in G-SPAO's fuel tanks. I guess it's possible that the AAIB will publish some new information in September's bulletin tomorrow. But if I didn't know better, I'd say the inquest is about to start and the lawyers are getting their defense in early. (Cynical? Moi?) 80.2.106.75 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014209/http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/glasgow_deployment.cfm to http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/glasgow_deployment.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]