Jump to content

Talk:Shoreham Airshow disaster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rename

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy move to 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash. —David Levy 22:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename to 2015 Shoreham Hawker Hunter crash. More specific, less melodramatic. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

The title should be 2015 Shoreham Airshow Hawker Hunter crash this is would make clear it was an article referring to this event of 2015 and not the 2007 Airshow crash or any other shoreham which exists and there is more than one Shoreham. Sport and politics (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Far too long. "2015 Shoreham Airshow crash" is sufficiently clear and unique. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Not including the plane is not clear enough, short is not always good for clarity. I have moved it to get away from the clearly unsupported title it was previously at. The article title as clear and informative, this is for searches for hawker /Hawker Hunter related searches, Shoreham/Shoreham Airshow searches. The article is also inline with the 1952 Farnbrough article title. Sport and politics (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:PRECISION. Redirects and search engines accommodate readers seeking other relevant terms. —David Levy 22:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Approach picture

Hi Folks, I added a picture of Runway 20 and the A27 road. This video from YouTube should give an orientation of the crash. Bridge, road, river and runway are visible.

Nice one, thanks for that. We're local, and a colleague suggests that the BBC photos show that the plane came down somewhere near the road junction visible to the right. MarkMLl (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AAIB request for photos

I've changed this to reflect what the BBC were reporting yesterday evening (Saturday), i.e. that the AAIB wanted people whith photos etc. to contact them but not to send anything.

As an issue secondary to this article this highlights a problem with linking to the BBC: they change the article posted to a specific URL, sometimes drastically, without giving any indication... these days they don't even have a time on a particular version, just a date. See this track [1] for the longer-running BBC story. MarkMLl (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Victims

Just a reminder that consensus on aircraft accident articles is not to list or name victims unless they are otherwise notable, normally considered that the have or would be likely to have a stand-alone wikipedia article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the players played for Worthing F.C., a notable football club, it is reasonable to assume that they would likely have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Do they? --McSly (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Until the accident the article Worthing United F.C. does not even mention players names. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Wikinotable. See WP:NFOOTY. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it is notable. They should be added back in. Worthing are a relatively big non-league side, and this is a huge loss to them. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | my contributions | 16:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:FOOTY disagrees with you. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:FOOTY only applies to sports. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
True but indicates that the would be unlikely to have an article so in wikipedia terms not notable per the current consensus on these articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, names of victims should not be included. However, the name of the pilot should be included. Generally in aviation incident articles, the pilot's name and co-pilot's name are included. See 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Can we please not use redtops as sources in the article. They fail WP:RS. I wouldn't use The Sun as a source for the day of the week, let alone facts about which was the previous deadliest aircrash in the UK. Reliable sources will report this in due course. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hospitals

While people are tweaking the content on hospitals, just to note that the injured were taken to Worthing Hospital but the pilot was airlifted to the Royal Sussex County Hospital. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a usable source? Should we put it in the lead? 31.52.163.247 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I note it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (with source), so maybe no need for such detail in the lead? 31.52.163.247 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

See also

I've trimmed this section down to the Farnborough disaster and Kegworth crash. A "see also" section is not supposed to be a place for placing every conceivable vaguely similar event. Farnborough is relevant as the deadliest airshow accident in the UK. I think that this is the second deadliest, but we'll need a RS before that factoid can go in the article. Kegworth is relevant in that a busy dual carriageway road was involved, although as far as I recall no vehicles were. I'd suggest that any other proposed additions are thrashed out here and consensus gained before they are added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I just edit-conflicted with you, attempting to reduce the list to the same two articles, with the same reasoning. we have categories for the rest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Removed the Kegworth accident as it has no relevance to this accident, an airliner on approach to a major airport is not the same as an airshow accident with an aircraft doing aerobatics, lots of aircraft have crashed on to roads and is really incidental to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, the link was tenuous at best. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added it back because it is relevant, as the crash was very similar occurring on a busy dual carriageway, and also this is now the worst crash in Britain since Kegworth - so that is another strong link. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | my contributions | 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry still a bit tenious, and also not the worse as the crash of Bandierante G-OEAA in 1995 killed 12 on board. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
On reflection: Kegworth is not relevant, because none of its casualties were on the ground. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of injured

There are contradicting comments in the article as to how many injured, one sections say 14, another says 16, could someone clarify? James 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisyja (talk • contribs)

 Done - infobox updated. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Worst since Kegworth

Please do not claim that this is the worst since Kegworth as already mentioned G-OEAA https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/2-1996-emb-110-bandierante-g-oeaa-24-may-1995 killed 12 in 1995. Just because journalists dont research doesnt mean we have to repeat misleading claims, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That's Knight Air Flight 816. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It may well turn out to be the deadliest since Kegworth. BBC South East TV reporting that police are saying the toll "could rise to 20". Of course, this will need to be confirmed before it goes into the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Pilot

Reports that the pilot was pulled clear might not be accurate. There was initially some confusion with a crashed light plane in Sandown earlier in the day, which the pilot survived. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure we should have the information on the pilot at the moment until we know what has actually happened. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The sourced info is fine, what we should not be doing is naming him. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
He was named in the source I gave. He is, according to the BBC, alive in hosptal [2]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why he shouldn't be named - all airplane crash articles name the pilots and crew when available. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, there are plenty of articles that don't name the crew when the name/s is/are known. My opinion is that, except in special cases such as Lubitz and the Germanwings crash, the pilot should not be named; I think there needs to be a very good reason to do so. If it doesn't aid in understanding of the subject, it isn't necessary; generally a name doesn't aid understanding. YSSYguy (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if this sounds argumentative, but hiding the pilot's name makes no sense: his name would have been published in the event programme, and all of the news outlets I have looked at (BBC, Telegraph, Guardian) have named him. New Thought (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that as a general principle we should follow the lead of the civil authorities in the country concerned, in the case of the UK that's the police. After all, it's they who have the unenviable job of formally contacting the injured or dead person's family. MarkMLl (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@SuperCarnivore591:, please undo your rollback. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I count at least two people that have no problem naming the pilot, and three people that don't want him named. That certainly does not equal a "consensus" to not give names to the victims. Consensus is not a vote. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not just this article, it applies across a great many aircrash articles and is in accordance with WP:BLP1E, which is policy. Very few non-notable people (in the terms of Wikipedia notability) are named in aircrash articles. For the very few that are, there are usually very good reasons that they are named. Wikinotable people should be, and generally are, named. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Re-read WP:BLP1E. It only applies to creating an article about the person, not having the person's name in the article. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". Before someone says something about WP:BLPNAME, that would only apply if the person's name has been intentionally concealed (an example where we would conceal it would be if it was a military aircraft in a secret operation). It's general consensus that the pilot and co-pilot of an aircraft which has crashed should be named, you can see 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to confirm it. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC
WP:BLP still applies to the pilot. It also applies to a certain extent to those recently deceased, such as the victims of this tragic accident. It does not apply to those who have been dead for 60 years plus. John Derry is a wikinotable person. It is arguable that his observer may be wikinotable, but his name is included for completeness. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Using some common sense, WP:1E states "[...]In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident.[...]"
Considering the fact there should be a redirect from Andy Hill (pilot) to the article, one can logically deduce that the name should not be censored from the article. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivia?

How is the addition of the church service to the responses section trivia? It is an event that was held in direct response to the event and worthy of inclusion IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth does it matter what the traffic lights at the intersection are called? Sitting in Australia, it matters not one bit to me; nor, I suspect, does it matter to anyone sitting in Taunton, Mevagissey, Worksop, Peckham or Saltaire either. Adding the info does not aid understanding of the subject, it actually detracts from understanding. YSSYguy (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is because each junction on a UK Road has a name, e.g. the roundabout before the junction cash site it called the "Manor Roundabout" The junction has a name it should be used as the crash was actually across the junction. Just because a user does not find it relevant because they are in Australia does not mean it is trivia. The plane crashed at the actual junction. If a plane had crashed into a specific hotel the name of the hotel would be included, it is the same principle here. Sport and politics (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Owner

I have - again - restored the name of the owner, a significant owner and operator of several vintage aircraft, Although the citation is now dead, I can confirm that the information was at that address on the evening of the incident. It is not Wikipedia policy to remove cited information just because of linkrot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not, but that wasn't why I removed it. In fact, a number of editors have removed this fact for the same reason. It is irrelevant who owned the aircraft. The fact that it was based at North Weald isn't that relevant either, apart from it demonstrates that the aircraft flew to Shoreham for the display, and was scheduled to fly back there afterwards. If the deadlink ref is to stay, perhaps someone can get a Wayback Machine link that works. Personally, I think it should go. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Because the owner is responsible for the condition of the aircraft? 109.204.116.189 (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Cached link now cited. Strictly the owner was Canfield Hunter Ltd (see the G-INFO Database reference), but that company is fully-owned by Graham Peacock [3] (not added as may be considered WP:OR ). Davidships (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

I don't see any sources for "4 (confirmed), possibly at least 11 (unconfirmed)". Sources, quoting the police, currently say "11 dead". It appears that someone has mistaken "unnamed" for "unconfirmed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Two Worthing FC footballers, a personal trainer and a chauffer = four. Let's keep the infobox to known facts, referenced speculation can be in the body of the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above, about sources; and about "unnamed" not meaning "unconfirmed"; which your comment seems to ignore. The figure of 11 is a "known fact", not "speculation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not a known fact Sussex police have said that it is " 'increasingly likely' that 11 would be the final figure for the number of people killed." That does not constitute a known fact by any stretch of the imagination! Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it IS a known fact that 11 died 'cos they have the bodies. It's just that there may be more. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@WWGB: Four names have been release. At least one other name is being mentioned, but not definitely confirmed. Of course the police will have a number of names identified as likely to be involved, but until there is confirmation and relatives have been informed, these will remain confidential. As I said in my edit summary, let's keep the infobox to confirmed details. Sourced speculation is fine in the body of the article. The full picture will become apparent in due course. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That there are at least eleven deaths is a "confirmed detail". It is not "speculation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The BBC are saying today only that "Police believe it is likely 11 people died." That is "likely", so not confirmed. 4 victims have been named, as have 2 missing people believed to have been in the area at the time. That makes 6, but no mention of the other possible 5. With that in mind, should we reword the fatality count detail? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No. And in the same piece the police also say "We think we've identified 11 people who have died at the scene" (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a "think", not a definitive "know". And 11 seems the likely maximum, not the likely minimum, so "at least 11" should be "up to 11". Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I read that as "think we've identified" not "think it's eleven". I wouldn't object to the latter change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Destination

I understand the aircraft flew in from North Weald to display and was due to return without landing. I have removed the origin and destination until we have a reliable source, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Suggest that if this is the case, Shoreham is given as stopover, annotated (display). Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably misleading as I dont think it had any intention of stopping it was a fly from North Weald, display and return to base, sadly not to be. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Have a link to the YouTube video of the Hunter taking off from North Weald Airfield, Essex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36gUb2NDhI From there it was due to fly to the display at Shoreham, then fly down the coast to Bournemouth to display there before returning to North Weald. Neither Shoreham or Bournemouth have facilities for a jet of this type to land. (Note: My interest comes from being a local there on the day as well as an aviation nut) 86.10.167.123 (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

'them' vs. 'it'

An editor or editors keep hanging "the AAIB appealed for members of the public to contact them" to "the AAIB appealed for members of the public to contact it" (Italics added). I don't know anyone, from social friends to professional copywriters and journalists, who would use the latter formulation in British English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Them" is correct in Br.Eng. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Then please fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think them is right too, have fixed it81.138.15.171 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I use "they", "them" and "their" all the time when referring to organisations - in conversation. However this is not a conversation, this is an encyclopaedia article, and we should be formal, otherwise "isn't", "&","couldn't" and "didn't" would be perfectly acceptable as well. There is no way that either "the AAIB is the agency that wants you to contact them if you have video of the crash" or ""the AAIB are the agency that wants you to contact them if you have video of the crash" is grammatically correct. Having the information in two separate sentences (I know it is written differently) does not make it grammatically correct to use "them", even though we all say it all the time. YSSYguy (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Them is correct formal British English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of Vulcan

Can someone please give me a good reason why the following is not relevant to this article?

Attendances to the show had swelled due to the draw of the Avro Vulcan XH558, performing its final year of displays before retirement.[1][2][3]

That fact that the Hunter didn't actually crash into spectators seems to me to be a ridiculous reason. And while it may be speculation on my part, could it not be the case that the motorcyclist taking pictures who was killed was only there because of the Vulcan? And I've seen at least one news piece refer to the fact one of the dead was looking forward to seeing the Vulcan. And that's not the only reason I included it - if you look later down the page, I included the fact that, as the Vulcan was already in the air at the time of the crash, it was decided to let it do a flypast. I'm thankful at least that this too wasn't removed for not being relevant to the incident, even though it seems like the standard being applied means it very well could be. If you actually read the source, you will understand that was because most people there were there to see the Vulcan, and thus organisers decided not to disappoint them, even though there were more pressing matters to attend to. Now, with this removed as supposedly irrelevant information, there's just a bizarre mention of "the Vulcan", as if readers are meant to have a clue what that means. Honestly, I'm getting really bored of having to explain the seemingly obvious to people on Wikipedia - it makes me really question why I even bother. It seems bizarre that I have to discuss this, when already I've seen someone else adjust what I wrote based on the source, based on what they personally saw, and the bit I added about the plane being in two bits, 200 yards apart, which was sourced, has also been changed to " four parts on impact: cockpit, tail, left wing and main body and right wing", without changing the source. Honestly, if you paid as much attention to these changes as you are apparently doing to removing this supposedly irrelevant info, you might end up with a decent article. I was surprised when I arrived here to find absolutely no information at all on which aircraft had actually flown on the day - I note the irony that the person removing the information here is the same person who was asking me to confirm it elsewhere [4]. Get your priorities straight please. Natural Ratio (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The motorcyclist may have been on his way to buy a newspaper. Shall we include the age of the newsagent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I've linked it, so we at least we know what it is. But it does look a bit odd. With those big bat wings. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

With reference to the previous "speculation", it appears [4] that three of the eleven fatalities were spectators who had chosen not to go into the designated spectators' area. Since the 1952_Farnborough_Airshow_DH.110_crash flight plans have had to take account of the location of spectators *within the airfield boundaries*. That 60 year old narrow definition of a spectator takes no account of the availability of modern telephoto lenses at accessible prices, nor the platform(s) of social media upon which those images can be shared. The forthcoming CAA review of display regulations may well have to consider this newer, broader definition when proscribing when, where - and indeed if - such manoeuvres may be performed. Astronomy Explained (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Shoreham air crash: How will it affect other shows?", BBC News, 28 August 2015.
  2. ^ The Times (28 August 2015). "Blue skies and shattered dreams at Shoreham".
  3. ^ "Vulcan excitement as second Shoreham visit added", WorthingHerald.co.uk, 4 August 2015.
  4. ^ "Shoreham air crash: The victims". BBC News. 2 September 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2015.

Men and people

To me there is something very odd about this: "killing 11 men and injuring 16 other people". It's like there's some weird men<>people thing going on, or it's unbalanced because the first half has gender and the second not ... or something. IS their gender relevant or are we just putting it in because we happen to know it? Is it actually better than "killing 11 people and injuring 16 others". It might just be me but in its current form I find it an uncomfortable read. What do you think? DBaK (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think any gender distinction has no place in the lede, so I have amended it. Not even sure of its relevance in the whole article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Martin DBaK (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Trivia

IMHO, this is trivia and does not need to be in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. DBaK (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Worthy of a mention on the BBC Radio 4 Six O'Clock News tonight. But yes, seems worthless. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple cars

Is "broke into four parts on impact: ... before hitting multiple cars" really the best we can do? Multiple Cars just sounds bizarre - is there no other expression that could work, and read more comfortably?

  • While I'm at it, I note that the multiple cars are currently {{cn}} anyway, so presumably we will one day lose it, or specify how many cars, or something ... and the way we currently have it constructed seems to make it clear that we know that it broke up in initial impact and then, after that, it hit the cars - do we know this for sure? Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The special bulletin just says that it "struck vehicles and persons around the road junction" other than mentioning it hit the road first it doesnt detail the rest of the sequence with regard to vehicles so perhaps we just need to wait for the interim report but clearly what it has in the article at the moment may not be correct. MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It is stated and referenced that eight vehicles were destroyed. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph says 8 cars, Guardian says at least 4, both articles being written within 12 hours of the accident so probably stc. I edited the article to say "several". I also changed it so that it doesn't say whether the plane hit the cars before or after breaking up. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that this version is a big improvement over the "multiple cars" version, thanks DBaK (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What location?

All the sources say Shoreham, the airport address is Shoreham-by-Sea, yet apparently it happened in Lancing - how should we proceed? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The airport is in Shoreham-by-Sea but the A27 by the sussex pad and the airport entrance is actually in Lancing. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict):I don't know, but thank you for bringing it here. It has been saying Lancing a while - what was the motivation there? DBaK (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Our own article on the airport (not an authority, I know!) says it's in Lancing. Local knowledge (ditto) tells us that neither the crash site nor the airfield can be considered to be actually in Shoreham, though I am not sure how to demonstrate this. I do feel that it would be very misleading to say Shoreham (as opposed to Shoreham Airport) too much. Thanks DBaK (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was only changed to Lancing yesterday evening, and without a supporting reference. It needs referencing, all current references say Shoreham. Please revert until consensus to change has formed. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, done, but it still reads oddly to say it crashed in Shoreham. However I obviously cannot resolve this. DBaK (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks. Perhaps something from the local press could be found that would act as a reliable reference to clarify the geography? What local papers and news channels are there? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The Lancing/Shoreham boundary is I believe only yards away from the crash site, the Sussex Pad is in Lancing but the Ricardo factory (the buildings/factory to the east of the crash site are in Shoreham. The airport itself is part of Shoreham. So it is correct to say the airshow/is at Shoreham-by-Sea, it may be best to leave crash site reference to Shoreham as that is what the reliable sources say although it may not be strictly correct. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it was me who edited it to say Lancing, but I regret I omitted the references. Apologies. I used the following: the description of Lancing's Mash Barn Ward http://lancingparishcouncil.webeden.co.uk/wards/4588421010 ; the map at the bottom of http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/councillors-and-mps/councillors-adur/#wards-map-and-list ; the map on https://www.police.uk/sussex/WW3NH5/, which shows quite clearly the airport to be in the Mash Barn ward of Lancing --Ryfish (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Has it been tacitly agreed to leave the location incorrect?--Ryfish (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it that definitely but, yes, it does look a bit like that at the moment. Certainly my clumsy and bad-tempered intervention, for which I have apologized, did not do much to help. I've been looking at the OS maps and admiring the way the border seems to run up the river, but I feel as if I should probably go and have a nice cup of tea rather than try to get involved with this again. For the record, yes I think there's a problem but I also see the issue of what the published sources say. A published source which explained it would go some way to help, but I have not yet seen it. So I think I'm leaving this issue for the time being. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of other instances on Wikipedia where inaccuracies and inconsistencies of geography can be seen. The traditional/administrative UK county boundary debate is one can of worms I would certainly advise sensitive editors to avoid. In that case a legacy vote, taken by fewer than 20 editors, appears perpetually binding on the presentation of location details.
Its probably best that, in order to avoid such rancour here, the popular conception of the location is the one presented publically rather than the geographically accurate one. Meanwhile, the record of this discussion will remain as evidence that editors were aware of the potential conflict between such perceived accuracy and a general consensus.
Further enlightenment may be obtained from WP:!TRUTHFINDERS if you have no other demands on your time. Astronomy Explained (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Originally many UK airfields and RAF Stations were named after the nearest railway station/halt. Shoreham-by-Sea railway station was probably the nearest railway station when the airfield was built - before most people had cars the majority of airline passengers/service personnel would have arrived by rail then, service personnel also being given rail warrants to travel. Since Dr. Beeching closed a number of rural railway stations in the 1960s this may not now be obvious.
In other words, the naming of a UK airfield/RAF station often has little to do with where it physically is - it's more to do with nearest significant place where you can access it from.
In the case of rural RAF stations such as used to be found all over Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, etc., the naming might be of a completely insignificant village nearby, the village name being sufficient to enable the finding of an airfield's approximate location on a map or when asking directions from locals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting points. (I'm not sure there is a Beeching effect to factor in in this particular case but hey.) I've made two small changes, the effect of which is to site the incident at or by Shoreham Airport and to remove the apparent claim that it was in Shoreham. I hope this helps ... what do you think? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Tha's OK - I was merely explaining why some airfields have puzzling names. IIRC, for example, RAF Rye - a Chain Home radar station - was actually in Kent, although the nearest town of Rye it was named after is in East Sussex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! DBaK (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

77

What's a "77"? It doesn't appear at Hawker Hunter. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Loop not scheduled?

Do we know whether the fatal loop was meant to be part of the show? Some said it was performed on the pilot's whim. Valetude (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Valetude: - I think we'll need to wait for the final report for the answer. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Aircraft's Permit to Fly was invalid." WP:SYNTH

The AAIB report (source for this material) does not say this: " As the ejection seats were deemed not to be "fully servicable", the aircraft's Permit to Fly was invalid." The AAIB said the cartridges were out of date, and that the CAA requires them to be within their expiry date. It does not say that such a discrepancy invalidates the PF. The report goes on to describe the difficulties of complying with this regulation, as the Hunter is no longer in military use, and therefore the cartridges are no longer available from the original manufacturer. The report says that a lack of approved cartridges makes compliance with CAA regulations problematic because operators are not allowed to disable the ejection seats on swept-wing ex-military jets. (They have no access to cartridges, but they are still required to have them.) Further, the report says, "The AAIB understands that other civil-operated ex-military aircraft have been operated with time-expired ejection seat cartridges installed." This is the whole point of SR 2015-42 in that bulletin. Operators have little choice. In any case, a malfunctioning ejection seat has not been considered by anyone to have been a factor in this accident, has it?

The PF clearly was NOT invalid, even though there were certain compliance issues, which the maintenance organisation says they had discussed with the CAA, though neither organisation has a paper trail. To say the PF was invalid is incorrect OR. Dcs002 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Technically, the PtF was invalid, due to the way it was worded. That is what the AAIB stated, whether or not it had any bearing on the accident (probably didn't). MO stated that they had authority to deviate, CAA disagrees. CAA's word is the law here. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The CAA did not take the extra step and revoke the PtF or declare it invalid. The AAIB did not state the PtF was invalid, nor do they have the authority to do so. If I am wrong, please give the page number where the AAIB makes that statement. Invalidating a PtF is only one of several sanctions available to the CAA for a violation of regulations, and so far no sanction seems to have resulted from this apparent infraction. Dcs002 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
From the report:-
Therefore, the ejection seats installed in G-BXFI did not meet the definition of ‘fully serviceable’ in CAP 632 paragraph 5.9, nor the requirements of ANN No 26172, and had not done so since June 2014, because they were fitted with time-expired cartridges.
Can't be any clearer IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
How can the CAA revoke a PtF if they are unaware of a breach? Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The AAIB makes conclusions of fact, not conclusions of law. Yes, the age of the cartridges was older than CAA regulations specified. Whether this is sufficient to invalidate the PtF is not a question for the AAIB to resolve. There are also numerous mitigating circumstances, described by the AAIB. Further, the maintenance organisation says they communicated this issue to the CAA representative and were given some sort of go-ahead, though paperwork of this permission has not been produced. It is not up to the AAIB to determine legal ramifications of anything, only factual information that has a bearing on safety and the accident they are investigating. Dcs002 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, how about stating "The AAIB found that... " re the expired cartridges? Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This is in the article: "A second special bulletin was published by the AAIB on 21 December 2015. It revealed that the aircraft was not compliant with its Permit to Fly insofar as the ejection seat cartridges installed in the aircraft had passed their expiry date." It uses the phrases "not compliant" and "passed their expiry date." Does that suffice? I have no problem saying the cartridges were out of date, and the PtF required them to be within expiry, just not the legal consequence of the permit being invalid. That assigns a legal finding. These were findings of fact made by the AAIB and included in the 2nd report. Dcs002 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with that. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

BRD - Accidents vs. Incidents

I changed "incidents" to "accidents", and it appears two editors have reverted my edit. The AAIB and ICAO have specific definitions for both words, and this was learly an accident, not an incident. Why the rreverts? Dcs002 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with "accident". Incident generally denotes a minor event, which this clearly wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I reverted to accidents. I welcome Sport and politics to join us here and discuss this issue. Dcs002 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Is "learly" some kind of Freudian slip? :) DBaK (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
:P No, my keyboard sucks, and I have to hit the keys hard or they don't register, and sometimes they register twice. I usually catch the errors, but some errors have gone into articles. Piece of junk! Dcs002 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I feel your pain! DBaK (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I would also go with "accident". I looked through 2/2015 and S4/2015 and they both have 10+ uses of "accident" and 4 of "incident"; these 4 are just footnotes (etc) uses and do not refer to Shoreham as such. I know we don't have to take our vocabulary from external sources but this seems to me to be a very good place to do so. DBaK (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The title of the article is crash, giving a clear indication of the nature of the article. Calling something 'major' or 'minor' is POV, in the same way as some incidents are ascribed the label 'terrorism' and others not. 'Accident' implies that there is no blame, where as 'incident' describes the crash without implying blame or no blame. The term 'accident' also means unavoidable, where the investigation could determine the crash was avoidable. Please also see the language used in the aftermath of the crash, which uses the term 'incident' and not 'accident'. Examples are here: The Independent 23 August 2015, BBC 28 August 2015, The Guardian 23 August 2015. Please also note the difference in language where the language describing the crash specifically is 'incidents', compared to the work of the AAIB which is described as 'investigating accidents'. As such the article should follow the reliable sources and avoid POV. As such accident is not used in the sources and is not NPOV, when describing the incident specifically, as this article does throughout. Sport and politics (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sport and politics, thanks for responding to my ping. I think this is an important discussion, and we need to work it out. The AAIB's definition of accident and serious incident are found here. The international authority on such occurrences, the ICAO, of which the UK is a member state, is found here. All three of the AAIB reports use the word accident exclusively in the text, with incident only appearing in general footnotes about "accidents and incidents", "accidents and serious incidents", and "accidents or incidents". This occurrence is never referred to as an incident, only an accident, and the worldwide definitions of accidents and incidents are followed. Accidents don't imply any of those things you say. It does not imply something that is unavoidable or a lack of responsibility. Quite the contrary. Accidents are so thoroughly investigated to find how they can be avoided. Accidents imply a lack of intention (rather than lack of blame) and grievous consequences, not just inconveniences, like an abandoned takeoff. If this were an intentional act, it would not meet the criteria of accident. I guess that leaves us with the question of which sources are more authoritative. I think the AAIB is the most authoritative source on this issue. I also think we should use correct (and well sourced) definitions instead of following what the newspapers say, especially if they get it wrong. Dcs002 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Further to Dcs002's comments, it is also the reason the British European Airways Flight 548 is the deadliest aviation accident in the UK to date, and not Pan Am Flight 103. It's all a question of intent. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

2014 Southport incident

For info - the 2014 incident the police are investigating is rumoured to be this. If so, it would suggest the same pilot was involved. None of this gets into the article unless confirmed by a RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Rumour now confirmed . Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shoreham_Airshow_disaster/Archive_1&oldid=1138125212"