Talk:Lockhart River air disaster

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

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

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Australia: Queensland / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Lockhart River air disaster is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Please do not change the references from the original. The ATSB report and the Report of the Coroner's Findings are two completely different documents. The Coroner's report is NOT available online but can be purchsed fro the Office of the State Coroner. --5roberto4 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

remove orphan tag[edit]

why is this flagged as an orphan, it is an important doc.

IFR--- How?[edit]

The ATSB report said the [very experienced] pilots were on IFR from Bamaga. LR has no navaids at all, nor are there any others within VOR/radar range. The only way of determining their distance from LR, on final, was via GPS. (Media reports at the time suggested there was heavy cloud and rain on the day.) The GPS approach is a letter type, that is it does not go all the way to touchdown, but ends some 2nm short. (At this point the a/c must be 600' above threshold alt.) The much older physical approach plate goes quite close to South Pap, and has very little room for altitude/distance error. If the pilots were using the the GPS "letter" distance as the real distance then they would have 600' too low for the entire approach. The impact point was 450' below the plate MSA for that leg. Given the experience of the two pilots (capt had ATPL, 6000hrs) such a simple mistake seems unlikely, although the tiny bit of evidence (450' too low) does indicate this happened.61.68.67.147 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The First-Officer was not highly experienced. For example, he was not approved to carry out GPS approaches. If the Captain was performing a GPS approach without the support of a suitably-rated First-Officer that was unlawful. The read-out from the Flight Data Recorder showed the aircraft descended significantly below lowest-safe altitude (or MSA) on two occasions, presumably because the Captain expected to become visual in doing so. Unfortunately, the aircraft struck terrain before becoming visual.

The aircraft was equipped with GPWS but it wasn’t enhanced GPWS so even though the crew would have received a warning of the rising terrain immediately below the aircraft it would not have been in sufficient time to avoid collision with the hill top. Dolphin (t) 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2020[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to not move (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lockhart River air disaster → Aero-Tropics Air Services Flight 675 – Per the naming conventions of the Aviation Accident Task Force. Both ASN[1] and the final report[2] state that this flight had a flight number of 675. The flight was also operating as Aero-Tropics Air Service even though Transair provided the aircraft and crew (it's IATA code was even Aero-Tropics' HC rather than Transair's JT), which is why I chose it instead of Transair Flight 675. LearyTheSquid (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This article has been in existence with its current title since 2008, and the accident is widely known by its association with Lockhart River. I have created a new redirect titled Aero-Tropics Air Services Flight 675 so anyone searching for Aero Tropics will quickly find the article. Dolphin (t) 21:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nom raises some important evidence, but per Dolphin51, WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. The redirect should be sufficient. Cheers, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.