Jump to content

Talk:British European Airways Flight 548/Archive 1

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

Fire on impact?

There's a line in here about there being 'no fire on impact'. Does this refer to the fact that the plane itself wasn't on fire at the time of the crash? Because this is probably true of a lot of plane crashes, and as such, isn't really needed here, is it? Does anyone else have an opinion on this? (Maaya 04:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

There was no fire at all. That is quite unusual. Graham 09:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about before impact, but there certainly was a considerable fire at the crash scene (Anon, 06 January 2006)

According to my source (Stanley Stewart's Air Disasters) a small fire broke out as rescuers were using cutting tools to free those trapped inside the aircraft. The fire was near the flight deck and was quickly brought under control - presumably that is what the photo on the BBC site shows. The original line on there being no fire on impact, and this being unusual, was actually correct considering the type of crash, i.e., a flat descent (belly flop) straight into the ground. Ian Dunster 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. We could probably put that back into the article then, with maybe a little bit of what was said here for clarification to laypersons such as myself? I guess when I think about plane crashes, I just try to think of the ideal way I'd like to go: no fire, sudden impact, no pain. Can you believe I started reading and editing these air disaster articles as a way to get over my fear of flying? -Maaya 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and put it back in. -Maaya 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Move

I see this page was recently moved. I don't know if there was any consultation about this - apparently not - but I disagree with it. This particular accident is widely known to residents of the UK, and almost always referred to informally as the 'Staines air disaster'. Nobody except those with a keen knowledge of the crash already will know that it was BEA flight 548, so the article naming does not make the article easy to find, or recognise for what it is really referring to. I beleieve the origibal title is more appropriate, and is in line with other similar articles where a particularly notable accident is referred to by its location rather than the details of the flight. Few people refer to e.g. Lockerbie as anything other than Lockerbie, likewise with this one (for those with longer memories). The drawback of this naming change can be seen by viewing the category "Disasters in the United Kingdom" - Staines isn't mentioned at all, just BEA Flight 548 - well, what's that when it's at home? Oh, you mean Staines!! Graham 09:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who moved it and I'm not familiar with the accident project naming conventions although I have seen similar article titles questioned recently. Staines air disaster does redirect here for anyone using it in the search box, we still have the Munich air disaster as an article title though (another BEA aircraft by coincidence). I would hope that there is some move conversation somewhere but from experience it doesn't always happen. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Stick pusher or stick shaker?

This article includes the sentence “The condition was not rectified by the pilots despite the operation of the stick pusher, and the aircraft entered a deep stall from which there was no possibility of recovery.” It is unlikely the term stick pusher is correct; and much more likely it should be stick shaker. If a stick pusher operated the aircraft would not have stalled. Does a WP Editor have access to the accident report? Alternatively, it should be easy for an Editor familiar with the Trident 1C to determine whether the aircraft’s stall warning was a stick shaker; and whether it also had a stick pusher (unlikely). Dolphin51 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back on this one. My father flew papa india one week earlier. Will confirm. BuzzWoof (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much BuzzWoof. I see that, when this article was created in October 2003, the expression stick shaker was used. On 23 January 2007 the word "shaker" was changed to "pusher". No explanation was provided. If a stick pusher was installed, and it operated, and the aircraft subsequently entered a deep stall, that is a major, major problem with certification of the aircraft design. I can't believe there would be such an emphasis on human factors if there was evidence that a stick pusher was installed but plainly wasn't equal to the task. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, many lessons were learnt from this accident! Designs were changed as a result. From what I've been told the Trident even had reverse thrust that could be operated in the air (a total no-no these days). The investigation at the time did not uncover the whole truth - there were some other factors involved which will, I am confident, one day come out. BuzzWoof (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer from former Trident pilot (who, confused why this article is being "used as a chat forum", adds "exhaustive manufacturers' information is still available on all three marks of Trident if anyone wishes to come in with a worthwhile point about the sequence of events leading up to impact and how the aircraft systems came into play"): the Trident had both a stick-shaker and a stick-pusher system. If the airspeed/angle of attack combination came any way dangerously close to the stall, the sticks on both sides would shake, a fierce and noisy buzz and vibration effected by electric motor imput. I witnessed that just once for real, (ie outside the simulator where we would practise it regularly), whan a pilot allowed the airspeed to decay in level flight during approach, below the point where he should already have lowered the first stage of flap in order [to] reduce the stalling speed and thus keep us above the shaker speed even though we had decelerated. He snappily realised his potentially serious boob and banged the flap down! If he hadn't, we would very quickly have reached the pusher speed. That system came in as an emergency last resort, just above the full stalling speed proper. Hydraulic rams pushed both sticks hard forward against the instrument panel. A very dramatic control imput, which was exactly what any on-the-ball pilot would have done, the standard stall-recovery action, which pitches the nose down and immediately decreases the angle of attack below stalling angle. If you then bung on full power on all engines and remedy any configuration mistake, eg too little flap or retracted droop leading edge, you will safely emerge from the stall - but only if you have sufficient height to absorb the inevitable lift decay/pitch down height loss. Papa India maybe had just enough height for just that, but there was speculation that the guy may have treated it as a false stall warning and systems operation. I believe that the override handle, a device we had for disarming the stall protection system in its entirety, a safeguard against malfunctions, was found to have been pulled. In any case the aircraft went into a second stall, a deep stall, and impacted in a level attitude at a vertical speed of about 100 knots. BuzzWoof (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BuzzWoof. Thanks very much for your information. I have perused the official AAIB formal report which is accessible via the external links and references in the article. (This is what I should have done first – if in doubt read the report!)
In the official AAIB report, Chapter 2 Narrative, sub-chapter (v) The flight, it explains that the stick-pusher operated on three separate occasions – 116 seconds after brake-release, 124 seconds, and 127 seconds. At 128 seconds after brake-release the stick-push system was manually inhibited by the dumping of the system.
In Chapter 5 Conclusion there is information that, after the droops were prematurely retracted, the stick-shaker and stick-pusher would have operated almost simultaneously. (The report also makes the point that if the operating crew had been sufficiently experienced and sufficiently alert the simultaneous operation of these two devices would have been a clear indication that the droops had been retracted prematurely.) In Chapter 5 there is speculation about why one or more members of the crew might have dumped the stick-pusher operating system. It arrives at the conclusion that they were oblivious to the premature retraction of the droops and therefore assumed the stick-pusher operation was a false activation. Very interesting reading.
I will make some editorial refinements to the article to clarify the sentence that first attracted my attention. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The accident is featured in a 1996 episode of Black Box and has some useful information that may be helpful to the layman. BTW, the 'Capt. Stanley Stewart' interviewed is the same Stanley Stewart who wrote the book: Stewart, Stanley; Air Disasters; London: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, 2001 (first published 1986); ISBN 0-7110-1585-6; pp. 91–112 from the 'Bibliography' section.
The relevant Black Box episode is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO7UAsFJtiE&feature=related ... it also covers the Tenerife Disaster as well.
As stated in the post above, the Trident did indeed have both a stick-pusher and a stick-shaker, and it was also the first commercial airliner fitted with a Flight Data Recorder. The stick-shaker replicates the buffeting that is felt through the control column as the aircraft approaches the stall in an aeroplane with manually operated controls, and is a very obvious sign to the pilot that the aircraft is approaching the stall. The system had been introduced not long before and there had been some teething troubles with it, and it had gained somewhat of a reputation for unreliability, giving false warnings, so some pilots approached its warnings with a degree of mistrust.
Both the stick-shaker and the stick-pusher were developed because of the deep stall condition that had been discovered to affect the BAC 1-11 and similar T-tailed, rear-engined airliners such as the Trident. BTW, the in-flight reverse thrust was designed-into the Trident, the airframe being stressed to take it into account, so it was quite safe to use it to hasten a descent. This would not apply to other airliners, as they need to be designed strong enough from the start. The purpose was to allow steep descents into somewhat restricted airports, such as those with high ground surrounding them.
The Trident was quite a good aircraft but, like many British airliners before it, it was really messed up by the primary customer, who didn't really know what they wanted and chopped-and-changed the required specification so that the resultant aircraft wasn't likely to get many other customers. Luckily Freddie Laker was the primary customer for the BAC One-Eleven (BAC 1-11), so that had good sales worldwide.

B class review

I have worked on improving this article and will now assess it informally using the Good Article criteria

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Yes Yes b (MoS): I believe so Yes
    Wikilinks have been added for technical or medical terms
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable
    Yes, Yesaccurate and well referenced. I have checked against the Stanley Stewart book. No original research noted.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Yes Yes b (focused): Yes Yes
    The lead could take one more paragraph to summarise the inquiry's stated causes of the crash (not mentioned at the moment).
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Yes Yes
    Some minor conjecture/editor's POV was removed.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Yes Yes
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes Yesb (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes Yes
    One non-free fair-use image in the infobox, I read somewhere that this is discouraged (will have to look for the guideline if it exists). Update: I can't see anything in here about it so I don't think there is a problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass Yes
    An already well written article with plenty of references (more have been added) that just needed arranging. Sub-section headers were added for easy navigation, some wikilinks added and others were refined to avoid redirects or DAB pages. I have asked another editor to check through again for spelling errors etc. I will now complete the B class checklist but I believe that this article could go higher. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Points from archived review

I have actioned most of the points from the archived review now, there are some metric conversions that could be added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I still have to agree with the last comment on the archived peer review, that this article is a chore to read, or at least to comprehend. I might take a stab at the intro. --Born2flie (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous accident

The aircraft involved (G-ARPI) was substantially damaged in an accident at Heathrow in 1968. Is this of sufficient notability to be mentioned in the article? Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the word 'unrelated' should be placed in front of 'accident'. The Airspeed Ambassador article links back to it in an indirect way. Perhaps there was suspicion at the time that the repair was related although it is not mentioned in the accident report. It's more related to the history of that particular aircraft and maybe that passage should be moved to somewhere better. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes

No mention of Captain Key's heart condition in the lead. A third summary paragraph would not be amiss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to remove the cites from the lead. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Medical problem noted briefly in the lead now, also split into three paras. Should Inquiry be lower case after 'Lane Inquiry'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The aircraft was commonly known as 'Papa India' from its registration, this only appears once in the article in the external links section, it could be used in places to add variety to the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sources close to the events of the time suggest that Collins played an altogether more positive role by attempting to lower the leading edge devices in the final seconds of the flight - if so, then they didn't deploy - in photos of the crash site the droops appear to be still in the fully-up position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.20 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stall Warning Section

"...at 16:10:24 (114 seconds)"..."height above the ground of 1,770 feet (540 m) and a speed of 162 knots (300 km/h)" "Key held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure and levelled the wings, but his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further" "...16:10:32 (122 seconds)"...."The speed was 177 knots (328 km/h) and height above the ground was 1,560 feet (480 m)"

How so ? The plane is going faster, nose up (climbing), and yet it is 60 metres lower ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.133.145.238 (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"At 16:10:39 (129 seconds), the aircraft had descended to 1,275 feet (389 m) and accelerated to 193 knots (357 km/h) as a result of the stall recovery system pitching the aircraft nose down to increase airspeed" "At 16:10:43 (133 seconds), the Trident entered a deep stall. It was descending through 1,200 feet (370 m), its nose was pitched up by 31° and its airspeed had dropped below the minimum indication of 54 knots (100 km/h)"

Within 4 seconds it has gone from 193 knots to 54 knots ?? This whole section needs more detail and explainable, there are too many 'WTF moments' to the average layman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.133.145.238 (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Broke in two before impact ?

"Witnesses said the three-engined plane broke into two as it fell - the fuselage ploughed into trees bordering a reservoir and the tail section landed 50 yards (45.7 m) away. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/18/newsid_2515000/2515787.stm

Which is exactly what the reference says, it does not mean that it is what actually happened though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2 Survivors ?

"Rescuers pulled two people alive from the wreckage of the airliner - a young girl, who died at the scene, and a Dublin businessman who was taken to a local hospital where he died a few hours later." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/18/newsid_2515000/2515787.stm

Again, I believe that is true. Earlier this year I spent a long time on revising this article in a sandbox with another editor. I will contact him to see if we can implement the changes now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Callsign & referencing system

I've changed the callsign from "Papa India" to "Bealine 548" as this would have been the callsign used in communication with ATC. You'll note that I have used {{sfn}} for the ref. The whole article could use this system but all the book sources will need to be converted to {{cite book}} format for this to work - the parameter |ref=harv must be included. THe Hawkhurst Branch Line article uses this system throughout. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for adding the callsign to the lead, I will check that it appears in the text, cites are not required in the lead if the information is cited elsewhere in the article. Per WP:CITEHOW the referencing format should be consistent throughout an article and should not be changed without good reason. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but it may be worth considering using the short footnotes system for book refs. In any case, I'd say that {{cite book}} should be used for the books in the bibliography section. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Two previous FACs that I successfully nominated did not contain any referencing templates, the short format with bibliography is entirely acceptable (as is total use of templated referencing). CITEHOW says that the format used must be consistent throughout the article, not a mixture of both. The referencing format has already been commented on at the FAC review, no consistency problems were noted although the reviewer did want certain details changing which has been done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC archiving

Just to note that the recent FAC review did not fail, it was archived due to lack of reviewers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Memorial at Staines

Is this the memorial mentioned in the article? Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not from photos that I've seen of it, the park memorial is a small rockery with a plaque (recently subjected to vandalism) and the church memorial is just the stained glass window I think (photo in the BBC link). There is another memorial in Brussels for the Belgian passengers but I couldn't find what would be deemed a reliable source at FA level for it (that's why it is currently not mentioned at all in the article). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This recent BBC News story shows the memorial at Staines. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Flight deck graffiti source

Moving the specific wording text of the flight deck graffiti here for the moment as it is attributed to pages 21 and 22 of the official accident report but apparently not there. I don't doubt it's accuracy, just need to find out which reference it actually came from. Wording of removed footnote: The graffiti found on G-ARPI's flight deck read: "Key must go"; "Yes but where?"; "B.O.A.C.?"; "Any-where will do!!"; "Send Owens with him."; "When Key dies, who will be God's next representative in B.E.A?"; "-> You?"; "Down with Keyline management". Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Times article on 28 November 1972 has a picture and commentary about the Graffiti as discussed at the inquiry <ref name="times58643"> {{Cite newspaper The Times |articlename=Scribble in crashed Trident denounced pilot |author= |section=News |day_of_week=Tuesday |date=28 November 1972 |page_number=1 |issue=58643 |column=E }}</ref> MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks like the Times archive is subscription only, does it mention this wording there? I think that subscriber sources can be used but I don't remember where or what the guideline was. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It is still a reliable reference as the citation points to the printed version, yes it is shown in the picture and some mention in the text. The sentences on a small folding-table are written above each other and not all in the same handwriting:
  • KEY MUST GO
  • BUT WHERE ? - DOWN THE DRAIN
  • B.O.A.C
  • ANY WHERE WILL DO!!
  • SEND OWENS WITH HIM
  • WHEN STANLEY KEY DIES, WHO
  • WILL BE GOD'S NEXT REPRESENTIVE
  • A B.E.A.

"The inquiry into the crash which killed 118 people in June, entered its sixth day with evidence from a handwriting expert about the words "Bloody stirrer, scribbled on a cockpit table." "Written comments included "Stan must go" and the outlines of a Yale key" - I got access to the Times free by using my local library card number as some counties have arranged access it depends where you live. Might be worth checking your local library service for online resources. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting and expands slightly on what was there. Unfortunately we can't use text in images or images as a reference source, I asked the specific question at WT:RS a while ago. It's maddening (London buses are red, shows photo of a red London bus - not a reliable source!) I digress! Can't help thinking that I've missed this in my sources, it might be in the Flight archives, there is a lot of material there and it's difficult to remember where it all is. It's not a disaster that the footnote is not included but it does show the lack of respect for Capt. Key. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

G-ARPI

Dont like to add this to the article while it is under review so I have brought it here, at the moment the article says little about G-ARPI. Something like:

The aircraft operating Flight 548 was a Hawker Siddeley Trident Series 1 short/medium-range three-engined airliner. The Trident was one of twenty four de Havilland DH.121s ordered by British European Airways in 1959<ref name="times554538" /> and with the constructors number 2109 it was registered to the corporation as G-ARPI in 1961. <ref name="G-ARPI" /> By the time of Papa India's first flight on the 14 April 1964 the company had become Hawker Siddeley Aviation, and Papa India was delivered to the BEA on 2 May 1964. <ref name="Roach" />

===Citations=== {{reflist|3|refs= <ref name="Roach">Roach 1992, p. 469</ref> <ref name="times54538"> {{Cite newspaper The Times |articlename=B.E.A. Sign £29M. JET Contract First Delivery Of Dh 121 In 1963 |author= |section=News |day_of_week=Thursday |date=13 August 1959 |page_number=5 |page_numbers= |issue=54538 |column=A }}</ref> <ref name="G-ARPI">{{cite web | url =http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/HistoricalMaterial/G-ARPI.pdf | title =CA Form 113 (Nationality and Registration Marks G-ARPI) | publisher =Civil Aviation Authority | accessdate =4 August 2010 }}</ref> }} ===Bibliography=== *Roach, John and Eastwood, Tony. ''Jet Airliner Production List'', West Drayton, England, The Aviation Hobby Shop, 1992. ISBN 0 907178 43X

Just though it would add some background info to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could be slotted in as the first para of 'Operational background', can I have a look at it for a bit? Just want to make sure that it is not repeating anything earlier (registration and aircraft type are linked in the lead but it could be linked again) or something might have to get removed further down. One other request if I could, the article uses short cites throughout (no templates), I could convert the cites or you could do it and add them here with a 'reflist' so that they are ready to go in. Might be confusing the bit about 'The Trident was ... DH.121s were ordered'. Sounds like two different aircraft, might have to explain where the DH.121 comes from. The Lockerbie article has a line on the aircraft involved: Pan Am Flight 103 was a Boeing 747-100 named Clipper Maid of the Seas. The jumbo jet was the fifteenth 747 built and was delivered in February 1970, one month after the first 747 entered service with Pan Am.
Welcome to change the text to make sense like The aircraft was one of twenty four. I have changed the citation section above it looks rubbish inside the nowiki but it can be just dropped into the citation section, it is a lot more easier to add new citations and organise them in one place and makes the text easier to edit with just the abbreviated references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've fiddled with it in a sandbox, am pasting it here with live cites to check that it is working, need to move one footnote in the article that explains where the name Papa India comes from.

The aircraft operating Flight BE 548 was a Hawker Siddeley Trident Series 1 short to medium-range three-engined airliner. This particular Trident was one of twenty four de Havilland DH.121s ordered by BEA in 1959 and with the constructor's number 2109 it was registered to the corporation as G-ARPI in 1961.[1][2] By the time of the aircraft's first flight on the 14 April 1964 the company had become Hawker Siddeley Aviation, and Papa India was delivered to BEA on 2 May 1964. [3]

References

  1. ^ "B.E.A. SIGN £29M. JET CONTRACT - FIRST DELIVERY OF DH 121 IN 1963". News. The Times. No. 54538. London. 13 August 1959. col A, p. 5. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help)
  2. ^ "CA Form 113 (Nationality and Registration Marks G-ARPI)" (PDF). Civil Aviation Authority. Retrieved 4 August 2010.
  3. ^ Roach 1992, p. 469.

One aspect of the text bothers me, it mentions that the Trident 1 leading edge devices are Krueger flaps. While this is true for the inboard leading edge devices, the outer two sections which comprise the majority of the L/E are true droops, they hinge from the underside and the entire wing L/E angles downwards with a moveable sealing plate (stored within the wing structure) being used to seal the resulting gap on the upper surface. I think that something should be added to clarify this as otherwise it gives a mistaken impression. The precise nature of these droops is critical to the sudden and rapid change in stalling speed as they retract. 193.128.72.68 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

  • Roach, John and Eastwood, Tony. Jet Airliner Production List, West Drayton, England, The Aviation Hobby Shop, 1992. ISBN 0 907178 43X

Actually, the note explaining where Papa India comes from is in the last para of the previous section so it is fine where it is. I can't see anything in the 'reflist' here, if we can fix that I think it is ready to go in. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is working now, ready to go in? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
OK the text might still need to be tweaked to read better but that can be done once it is moved. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the two templates have to be converted to short cites before it goes in, it's a whole different ball game at FAC!! It's not me WP:CITEHOW says the article has to be all one or the other and the cite police will be watching and waiting. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Two other teeny details: Is the Times ref subscriber only? I think a note or template has to be added to it if it is and is that exactly how the headline is typed (mixture of upper and lower case and no dot in Dh 121)? It's just that I can't actually see the ref. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you think is wrong with the text? Better to fix it now before it goes in. I had to shorten British European Airways to BEA because it is already abbreviated in the article by this stage, otherwise I think it looks ok, it's factually accurate which is the main thing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Although you have to have a subscription to read the times the Times citation is to the printed version not the online version so is fine. I will tweak the title to read as the printed version. I think the text is OK happy to go with it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, nearly there then. I spotted a couple of formatting probs in the text but I hope they are fixed now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I dont think using WP:LDR is a problem it doesnt change the type of citation used just the location of the reference call. It is a new feature only added at the end of last year. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a new one on me, sort of contradicts CITEHOW but that's the MoS for you! Right, I will enter it into the article now, any problem noted by reviewers will be referred back here to show that we complied as best as we could. All that just for one paragraph! I do think it was worth it though. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I put it in but there was a cite error problem so I reverted, perhaps you can see what the problem is? Strange after checking it all worked here? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
OK now in article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, I think it sits nicely there, I couldn't see what the problem was so I reverted myself, all working ok now though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Confidential aviation incident reporting

As one consequence of this accident, confidential aviation incident reporting programs got a boost. Here is a link showing the implementation dates of such programs for various countries. I added NASA's ASRS to the article, since AFAICT it was the first of its kind (1976, government run, offering anonymity and immunity), four years after the G-ARPI accident, but it might make sense to expand on this a bit more, esp. if a secondary source can be found to avoid WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just recently a cite link to the UK CAA CHIRP website was removed from the article although the point was fairly made that it was just a link to the website and not actually telling us anything relevant to this accident. I had entered the cite after the Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme redlink that I created just to prove that it existed but agree that as a cite it was not useful. There is an article on Crew Resource Management and perhaps a general worldwide CHIRP type article should be created, it's not something I've looked at because I usually write about purely mechanical aviation things (mainly aero engines). In my time editing this article I have struggled to make the link between CRM and the CHIRP programmes and how this accident prompted the improvement/creation of these training/safety systems, I know that it did but not how exactly it happened. I put that down to not being a commercial pilot of the 1970s, a person who would have the 'bigger picture' of contemporary happenings. My engineering and GA aviation background gives me enough understanding to collate this article for wiki purposes with standard books (just!!). As they say you don't have to be an expert on a subject to edit an article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Felthorpe accident photo

Would it be possible to use File:G-ARPY Felthorpe.jpg in this article too? Note how the fuselage has deformed in a vertical direction, similar to that of 'PI when it crashed. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the image before and it is remarkably similar to the Staines accident. It has no author information. You could ask User:Ealdgyth to have a look at it, she often reviews images at FAC, knows the rules and may be able to advise. There are more images of 'PY' through the external link at the bottom of this article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Where do you think I filched it from? Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have thought of all the possibilities, the other thing of course is that as non-free it can only be used in the article it was uploaded for, as it's not Papa India a bot would actually remove it (but not delete it), this happened in my sandbox once and it took me a while to realise what had happened. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Not quite the situation. A NFFU image can be used in more than one article, but a separate NFUR must be filed for each article it is used on (example). Mjroots2 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be better to find a non-free image of this accident to use. Dont think that using an image of a different accident would add when the reader can go to that article for information if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is a non-free image to use yet. My hunch is that the image being discussed is Crown Copyright, which means it will be a free-use image in 2022 (probably comes from original Public Inquiry into the accident). The info it would add is in the similarity of the way the fuselage distorted in the accident, due to the similar nature of the accidents. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This image of G-ARPI http://www.securiteaerienne.com/ill/Trident-G-ARPI-crash.jpg doesnt really look anything like the felthorpe image. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

Anyone remotely human will think the discussion below is beyond belief. Air geeks and or self appointed Wikipedia gurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.251.102 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Anybody know why the latest featured article nomination was closed after all the hard work put in by Nimbus which was still ongoing when the nomination was closed ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really although I wasn't surprised. I am guessing that the last reviewer was so critical of it that the FA team decided that it would never make the grade. I can't describe my thoughts on this, another editor was also heavily involved in the background, we have discussed it off-wiki. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I offered to Nimbus to keep working on it, but he seems to have given up, at least for now. I would like to see it to completion, and to FA status if possible, and am even contemplating doing it myself if needed, once RL permits. Crum375 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Although some good points were raised some of the seemed to be fairly minor in the big scheme of things, one thing for certain it should certainly not be B-Class. I never really get involved in assessment as it is all a bit vague but can we do something else to get it up the scale a bit from B? MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A complaint repeated many times during the FAC review was that the article did not have a neutral point of view, I could not see this myself. Thinking on it, the article describes something that happened in England, to a British registered airliner, crewed by Brits, investigated by and written about by Brits (apart from Bartelski who has Polish origins but may have other citizenship). Compounding that the recent detailed editing has been by myself (Brit) and another British editor (his edits are not apparent because they were carried out in a sandbox and he prefers not to get involved much in reviews). How the rest of the world reported this accident and inquiry I just don't know, I have limited references. Some of the grammar was questioned which I found odd (I trust the other editor to correct my admittedly poor grammar and punctuation as he did with the other two FACs that I nominated), this may be another national difference. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
My own points were admittedly (and intentionally) a mixed bag: some major, some fairly minor, and some just nits. As I understand WIAFA, a FA must be very near perfect, a masterpiece, and not just a "good enough" article, which would be a GA. Anyway, I am willing to work on this, either directly or as reviewer, and do whatever it takes (within reason) to get it to FA. Crum375 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I am very aware of the need to produce FA quality articles beyond that of just 'good enough'. Any editor could take the very best FA on Wikipedia and still find some fault with it. There was no visible end to the criticism despite many adjustments to the article. A peer review in the aviation project would be useful to see what other editors views are. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a peer review could help, although I think it makes sense to submit it there after the outstanding issues are addressed. Note the most recent item I added to my FAC review comments, regarding the article's background section. I believe this section should focus more generically on T-tails as a design feature, with emphasis on jets, because this generic design seems to be at the root of the deep-stall tendency, with the stick shaker/pusher mechanism intended to mitigate it. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Deep-stall was not a new and is covered in Stall_(flight)#Deep_stall so I dont think adding lots of detail in this article is really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Deep stall in commercial jet aircraft was fairly new at the time of this accident, and many pilots were still learning about the seriousness of it, esp. those pilots transitioning from other types (where engines were quicker to "spool up" and the stall more benign). The current "deep stall" section of the "stall" article barely touches on this topic and its history. Certainly the BEA 548 article is no place to cover this topic in great detail, but given that it's an underlying cause of the accident (actually not so much the "deep" aspect, but the critical need for leading edge high-lift devices, as well as stick shaker and pusher), it makes sense to expand and explain this issue. However, having said that, my main point is not so much the depth or breadth of the background material, but its focus. At the moment the focus seems to be on that particular type and its propensity to deep-stalling, while I think it makes more sense to focus the background on the generic design features, which were not unique to this type. Crum375 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
'Fairly new' is very vague and could mean almost anything but it certainly not accurate to say 'many pilots were still learning about the seriousness of it'. Deep stall had been known about since the '50s and well understood since the crash of the prototype 1-11 in 1963, nearly 10 years before which can hardly be called fairly new. Simulator training on the Trident for all pilots whatever their background emphasised the issue. There are other problems with the article. The account of the issue of Supervisory First Officers is mostly wrong and Simon Ticehurst was not and didn't need to be a Supervisory FO. treesmill (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether the 'deep stall' phenomenon was new or not it is apparent that no member of the crew was aware the aircraft was about to stall, otherwise they would have done something about it. The most likely scenario is that Capt. Key while suffering mild-to-severe discomfort due to his heart, neglected to announce 'flaps up' at the appropriate time and someone on the flight deck noticing this omission, raised them without comment. Later when Key was eventually able to announce 'flaps up' he or another crew member operated the only lever that was still in the 'down' position - the droop lever. Capt. Key, then thinking there was no reason for the resulting stall warning/stick shaker and stick-pusher to operate, as it was only the flaps that had been raised, then dumped the stick-pusher system. He then re-raised the nose to continue on the climb-out from Heathrow, and the aircraft then stalled.
Captain Key was almost certainly suffering from what is nowadays called 'subtle incapacitation' and unfortunately no-one on the flight deck noticed it, nor was anyone, including the more experienced jump-seat passenger, paying sufficient attention to what was going on inside the cockpit as the accident could otherwise have easily been prevented.
... as for the then-ongoing industrial dispute, flight decks are like marital beds - you don't take arguments into them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:British European Airways Flight 548/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: N419BH (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated a couple of these myself, probably time for me to review one. Please be patient as this is my first time reviewing a Good Article Nominee and I will probably be a bit slow with it. N419BH 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Specifics

  • The second paragraph of the "Industrial Relations Background" section is difficult to follow and I am having a hard time understanding the underlying dispute. As I understand it P1/Captain, P2/First Officer/Copilot, P3/Second Officer/Flight engineer but what exactly is the dispute? Also, there are a lack of copilots, so these supervisory copilots are being removed from the copilot seat and moved to flight engineer? That seems backwards. Also I'd like to see a source for the second sentence which claims the older pilots were opposed and the younger pilots were in favor.
  • It is somewhat confusing for the "Orly incident" and the "Naples incident" to have separate headings when the introductory sentence for both refers to the last sentence of the "Felthorpe accident" section. Either rewrite to remove the reference to the other section or remove the section headings and call all three paragraphs "Previous Incidents".
  • The picture of the passenger cabin doesn't seem to flow in with the text at its present location, and I'm not sure if it actually adds much to the understanding of the article. Consider moving/removing it.
  • The background sections seem too long compared to the rest of the article. After all the setup I'm left at the end of the article wondering, "wait, what was all the setup for?" This can be remedied by either eliminating some of the background or expanding the inquiry section to include findings related to the background.
  • The article seems biased to the controversies that occurred and doesn't actually discuss the accident itself much.
  • Not required for article passage, but a picture of the memorial would be exceedingly helpful.
Some information on BEA pay dispute being 'resolved' the day after the accident, in Flight news item here (top right): [1] - Keys had previously drafted a speech 'deploring' the industrial action which was read out at the meeting.
A Flight opening article on the pay dispute here: [2]
An article on the inquiry briefing here; [3] and the subsequent inquiry into the accident here: [4] and another here: [5] and another here: [6] ... and a pilot's response to the inquiry; [7]
...and the subsequent inquiry findings here: [8]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Overall I'm left with an impression that this has all the items needed for a good article, but seems lackluster in its discussion of the actual accident and the inquiry, focusing in its present state too much on the background controversies and underlying labor disputes and even in the investigation section focusing on the controversies and not the actual inquest. As such I feel it's focused on the wrong area, an article on an accident should focus on the accident. The best way to remedy this is probably to expand the sections on the accident and the inquiry, rather than shrink the background as its clear the background is important. I'll wait for input before putting the article on the customary 7 day hold. N419BH 09:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Placing on hold for 7 days. N419BH 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Concerns have not been addressed, so I must fail this nomination. I hope these concerns are reviewed and the article is renominated at a later date. N419BH 02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Staines air disaster"

"Staines air disaster" or just "staines disaster" seems to be a name this event is known as, but isn't mentioned though there is a redirect from that name. Should/Could it be fitted in the lede? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to add it to the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It was in the lead [9], someone took it out along with a lot of other text by the look of it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the article should be re-titled 'Staines Air Disaster'. The flight number is not something people remember or search for. Valetude (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If you enter "Staines Air Disater" in the search box you will get this article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Operational background phrasing

I would suggest that "and a stall recovery system known as a "stick pusher" which automatically pitched the aircraft down in order to build up speed if the crew failed to respond to the warning" would be better if phrased "...pitched the nose down in order to reduce the angle of attack...". Yes, the speed would increase, but that isn't what is unstalling the wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BackSeat (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but if you trawl back through the extensive archives of this article the phrase was altered to be more encyclopedic (easier to understand for readers not familiar with aircraft operation), I believe it was at the request of a reviewer during the first FAC nomination (linked through the talk page headers). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Who was flying?

The article describes all the actions on the flight deck as being undertaken by Stanley Key in person. There is a strong theory that Key had suffered a heart attack, and that these actions were being undertaken by one of the co-pilots.

In particular, one of those pilots had a tendency (logged on his training record) to retract the droops prematurely - the biggest single cause of the crash. Valetude (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Deadliest accident

After I raised an issue at WP:MPE, it was pointed out to me that the lede claimed this was the second deadliest aviation accident in the UK. Not so, it is the deadliest. Pan Am Flight 103 was no accident, but terrorism. I have amended the lede to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead in this version (preparing for Featured Article standard in 2010) phrases it in a different way, possibly more enclopeadic. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Numbus227: - I don't mind what the lede says, as long as it is clear that this is the worst aviation accident in the UK. If you feel that it can be put better, please feel free to reword. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Trimmed into the stall"

The description of the eventual stall that doomed the aircraft needs clarification. The official report makes it clear that the flaps are raised -> the stick shaker activates, and pushes the nose down -> the autopilot deactivates -> but the nose immediately goes up again, because the aircraft was trimmed tail-down. The implication is that the pilot either didn't fight the trimmed aircraft's natural tendency to pull up, or he didn't feel a need to do so (having not realised that the flaps had been retracted).

The article however says nothing about trim, and implies that the Captain actively pulled the nose up a la Air France Flight 447 ("Key levelled the wings but held the aircraft's nose up, which kept the angle of attack high, further approaching a stall"). This is sourced to a book. What does the book say, and which is correct; the book or the report? The problem is that without mentioning the aircraft's trim, the sequence of events is hard to follow. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British European Airways Flight 548. 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:

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) 02:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British European Airways Flight 548. 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:

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) 09:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_European_Airways_Flight_548/Archive_1&oldid=1146006929"