British Airways Flight 38 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 here 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! Dcs002 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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! Dcs002 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Clowder of Cats: I noticed you'd made an edit almost a month ago to the lead of the British Airways Flight 38 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? Dcs002 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcs002 thanks for pointing that out. You're right, there is a separate EASA airworthiness directive 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. Clowder of Cats (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dcs002 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
