Talk:BOAC Flight 712

Distraction unproven

The opening alleges the presence of the check captain created a distraction which contributed to the sequence of failures: "Confusion over checklists and distractions from the presence of a check captain led to a major fire that killed five of the 127 on board after the aircraft had made a safe emergency landing."

It appears there is no data in the balance of the article to support this allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.182.43 (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh : Witnessed damaged aircraft in flight

I read an article about this once and it mentioned that Prince Phillip had witnessed the plane in distress from his study in Windsor Castle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.14.226 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, he wrote the foreword to "Fire Over Heathrow" and confirms it there. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can this be a good article....

when there are statements in sentences like this:

Confusion over checklists and distractions from the presence of a check captain led to a major fire that killed five of the 127 on board after the aircraft had made a safe emergency landing.

1. I assume the sentence is saying that a fire started after an emergency landing. Then why not state that immediately.
2. The fire began because of "confusion over checklists" and "distractions from the presence of a check captain ", what on earth does that mean in plain english?
3. what is a "check captain"?

Not only is the statement written in a passive voice but it uses confusing terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.151.190 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your points. The fire began due to an engine failure. Confusion over the use of the "engine failure" or the "engine fire" checklist and the actions of the additional member of crew on board (the check captain) meant that the accident was more serious than it might have been. A Check Captain is an airline employee whose job it is to check that flight crew are performing their jobs properly, in accordance with both air law and company standards. These people are generally very senior aircrew, with many years experience as captains of aircraft in their own right.

Jargon has been kept to a minimum, but it is sometimes necessary to use it. It is impossible to write aviation articles without using aviation terminology. If you feel that any phrase needs explanation, please say so here and I'll see what can be done. A basic knowledge of aviation matters would be beneficial to the reader, although it is appreciated that many readers have no knowledge of aviation matters. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It does explain check captain in the body as check captain for routine performance review of the pilot in command. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The crew initially heard a loud bang which they assumed was a catastrophic engine failure, there being no fire warning indication, and so they carried out the 'Severe Engine Failure Drill' - at this time the checklist treated this type of failure as separate from a fire warning. The first indication of a fire was when the Route Check Captain looked out of a window and saw the flames. The Captain was then going to perform the Fire Drill but was over-ruled by the Route Check Captain who considered the fire serious enough for them to need to get the aircraft back on the ground immediately, rather than perform a circuit while the Fire drill was carried out.

The additional crew member on the Flight Deck was a Route Check Captain who is used to check out a crew on a route they have not flown before.

Interview in which Capt. John Hutchinson recounts the events, here: [1] (starting at 11:17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.232 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 September 2020

Hutchinson

I'm really not sure why this flight crew member's name keeps being removed as "not notable". Other flight crew members are also only mentioned once and their roles in the accident do not really require their names to be used, yet their names are deemed to be worthy of inclusion. Notability guidelines do not extend to article content, so anyone who wants this information to be excluded should make a good case for it. If he's worthy of mention as being present, I don't see why he specifically cannot be named. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, Hutchinson is mentioned later as one of the crew members who were involved in the Katz incident during the evaucation. It would surely be helpful to have his name mentioned above in conjunction with his role, so readers know who the guy was. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I say he is notable enough to be mentioned, but may not be notable enough to sustain his own article. Might be worth mentioning that he later became a Concorde pilot. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Still think that he doesnt really feature in the events of the accident, other than being pushed out of a door. That said if the addition is supported by mjroots then I will withdraw my challenge to it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he is notable here though there is no question that he played his part , he surely needs a wikipedia page of his own about his career in aviation and indeed an exceptional Concorde pilot and communicator about that aircraft subsequently . I am surprised that he does not. An unsung hero here.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.123.55 (talk • contribs) 17:33. 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Jane Harrison

Miss Harrison's own article specifies that she was awarded the George Cross. This article seems to indicate that she was also awarded an MBE and a British Empire Medal. I don't know which is true, but it seems that the two articles should agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, there are more details at the very end of the article. Certainly the second paragraph of the article could be reworded to indicate those who were awarded honours and to be less confusing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@JByrd: - I've tweaked the lede, should be clearer now. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BOAC Flight 712. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417155909/http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-boac712.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-boac712.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304130144/http://www.airliners.net/photo/BOAC/Boeing-707-465/0151178/L/&sid=1d9baa8ae21c63c8a320993159a8c78b to http://www.airliners.net/photo/BOAC/Boeing-707-465/0151178/L/&sid=1d9baa8ae21c63c8a320993159a8c78b
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514183218/http://www.gc-database.co.uk/decoration.htm to http://www.gc-database.co.uk/decoration.htm

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) 21:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Direct quotes

@John:, you claim WP:MOSCAPS for your reason for changing a direct quote. As it is a direct quote, WP:PMC applies, and the text and capitalization should be reporduced exactly per source. I was careful to do this when I originally added it. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting; it seems these two sections of our MoS contradict each other! It seems obvious to me that errors of capitalisation should be silently corrected when we use a quote. This information would have come from the CVR, which is an audio file with no capitals. Susan Ottaway uses the more normal capitalisation in her book. All in all I think this is a slam dunk. --John (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I've changed the ref to reflect the spelling. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, result! --John (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks

This article quality is straight out aviation literature, written for serious aviation enthusiasts and professionals. Unfortunately, it has too many terms that need WP:WIKILINKS for others not falling into those categories, AKA 99.999% of the population. Also i do want to remind you that English Wikipedia is read by many and not just by English speaking folks. I added as many wikilinks I could think of and hope you will do the same to help others not to get lost in an otherwise outstanding article. Thanks! Bohbye (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a general encyclopedia so it is not written for "serious aviation enthusiasts" or professionals and also note it is not written as you imply for the many that dont speak English. Just be careful you dont overlink the more obvious terms and they dont need to be repeated once linked. MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I only linked once per term within the article, and tried my best not to link something already linked. Thanks, Bohbye (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Katz

Discussion transferred from User talk:EEng:

Re your recent edit, it may be better to restore the original text re Katz which gives the situation more context. This was the version of the article at promotion to GA status. I think that first paragraph about Katz should be restored. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's that paragraph:

Katriel Katz, Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Katz had been expelled from the Soviet Union by Andrei Gromyko when it became clear that the Six-Day War would happen. Gromyko is said to have told Katz not to let his emotions get the better of him, advice he was to ignore in the emergency that was to befall him.[cite] During the evacuation from the aircraft, Katz was the only passenger to escape through the forward port door, despite the efforts of Hutchinson and Unwin to stop him using that door. The two flight crew were almost carried out through the door by Katz, who was a large man. Katz was seriously injured in jumping from the doorway.[cite] He was taken to Hillingdon Hospital where it was initially feared that he would become the sixth victim of Flight 712. Katz recovered after a few days. He died in 1988 aged 80.[cite]

It's sensible to mention who Katz was and the, er, struggle with the crew, but the rest belongs in the article on Katz, if anywhere, though I find the bit Gromyko is said to have told Katz not to let his emotions get the better of him, advice he was to ignore in the emergency that was to befall him strained at best. It is said that Gromyko said this? And assuming it's Ottaway who characterized Katz as having acted on his emotions, then reliable as she may be on straight facts, how in the world can she know this? It may or may not have been the right decision in retrospect (on the one hand he was seriously injured in the jump, on the other he survived when others did not) but it may have been an entirely rational decision given the situation as he perceived it from wherever he was in the cabin.

Listen, while we're here, is plane not an OK variation on aircraft [2]? Why not? EEng 00:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• It might be worth you obtaining a copy of Fire Over Heathrow, pages 33-34 and 67-68 contain the relevant info. The bit about what Gromyko told him is an accurate account of the source quoted. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Plane" is unencyclopedic. Aeroplane is OK, although I prefer aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neither my modest local college library nor my nearby smalltown public library has Ottaway, so I'm going to ask you to fill in the blanks for me. Though I don't understand why the article said, it is said that but I believe that Gromyko said this to Katz -- let's take that as a given. But where does Ottaway get that Katz's emotions got the best of him? Short of Katz himself saying that from his hospital bed, this sounds like a journalistic embellishment by Ottaway. Can you quote something from Ottaway that takes this idea out of this realm?
• The OED doesn't mark plane as informal in any way, and it's easy to find it used in formal contexts. I see no reason it shouldn't be used for variation. (Unencyclopedic is just a tautology: it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.)

EEng 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, allow me to rephrase, "plane" is a colloquialism. I don't like it and it has no place in a Good Article. It wasn't there when the article was promoted.
• As for Ottaway, I'll quote the relevant passages:-

Passenger Katriel Katz had been a cabinet secretary in more than one Israeli government and was the Israeli Consul General in New York before becoming Tel Aviv's ambassador to Moscow, a position he had held the year before, during the Six-Day War of 1967. He was famously called to the Kremlin by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister, when it became clear that was would break out between Israel an the Arab states. The Soviets supported the Arabs and Gromyko wanted to register his country's distaste for what he described as the "war frenzy" in Israel. Katz was outraged and retaliated by excitedly detailing the threats made against Israel by the Syrians and Egyptians. Gromyko is said to have told Katz: "Do not let your emotions get the better of you." The situation between the two countries rapidly worsened and Katz was finally expelled from the Soviet Union. Regardless of the diplomatic stalemate that the two countries had reached, Gromyko was right in what he said about Katz letting his emotions get the better of him. By the end of Monday 8 April 1968 Katz must have wished that he had heeded Andrei Gromyko's advice of the previous year and had not been in such an excitable state when confronted with the dangerous personal situation that would face him that day. (from Fire over Heathrow pp 33-34)

When the former ambassador. Katriel Katz, pushed his way to the fromt and tried to escape through the forward port door it was John Hutchinson and Rosalind Unwin who initially stopped him. A large man, Katz was determined to use this door and, despite the crew's efforts to calm him and direct him to the safer forward exit on the opposite side of the 707, he would not listen to anyone and very nearly took Rosalind and John with him as he broke free and leapt through the forward port doorway. Had he heeded the advice given to him the year before by Andrei Gromyko, and not been so hot-headed, he would undoubtedly have saved himself the many injuries he sustained when jumping onto the hard surface of the runway. (from Fire over Heathrow, pp 67-68)

I'd recommend obtaining a copy of the book if you can. It is a fascinating read and very hard to put down once started. Try a well-known internet auction site or the one named after a big river. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort. Before I opine on what exactly the article should say about Mr. Pushy, I just want to be clear: I take it there are no footnotes Ottaway gives that you're omitting? On plane, I don't want to fuss about this but I can't find any dictionary, including OED, that marks it as informal, colloquial, or anything else. Certainly aeroplane/airplane or aircraft is more formal, but that doesn't make plane not-formal. EEng 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There is one footnote, which relates to Hutchinson and Unwin initially stopping Katz. This states that the information was obtained from both of them by the author in conversation as part of her research into the book. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on this, then, I think what's in the article now –

Survivors included ... Katriel Katz, Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Katz, a large man, was the only passenger to escape through the forward port door; Hutchinson and Unwin tried to direct him to the slide on the starboard side and were almost carried through the port door by Katz, who was seriously injured in the jump.

– is exactly right (assuming that the footnote covers not just "Hutchinson and Unwin initially stopping Katz" but also the "almost carried through the door" bit as well). The stuff about Gromyko appears to be journalistic flourish. EEng 12:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Journalist flourish, or solid background info as to why Katz did what he did?. Am going to ask for further input on this. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I cant see the connection in the sources between the pre-accident stuff and the actual acccident, the article is fine as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the current version seems adequate (although it could mention that Katz almost died of his injuries, if that's correct). Katz didn't play any significant role in the accident other than being one of the passengers by chance, so a brief mention is enough. On the other hand, the circumstance is more significant within the context of his biography, so any background info and what Gromyko did or did not say should go into that article, if anywhere. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Who cancelled the fire bell? Article is inconsistent

In the second paragraph under "Flight" it states "At the same time, First Officer Francis Kirkland inadvertently cancelled the fire bell."

but later, in the first paragraph under "Investigation" it states "Check Captain Moss had accidentally cancelled the fire warning bell instead of the undercarriage warning bell."

The accident description linked as reference #7 states "the co-pilot instinctively but in error pressed the fire bell cancel button" but I am not sure that is an official source.

Perhaps someone much more familiar with this incident can correct this. Bravesnowball (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo

@Aviationwikiflight and Khang To: - we're not going to edit war over the image, are we. I can see the arguments on both sides - better quality image of a very similar aircraft vs photo of the actual aircraft. IMvHO, the better quality image wins out. Will raise at WP level so that more voices are heard. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

For me, an image of the actual aircraft almost always trumps that of a similar aircraft. This case is a bit unusual, however, as the only other image of the aircraft is of the rear fuselage and is not the subject of said image (which is the El Al aircraft). I suppose we should ask why we often include pre-accident or similar aircraft images even when accident photos are available. If it is (as I believe) to show the extent of the damage for readers who may not be familiar with that the aircraft is supposed to look like, then I much prefer the full image of the similar aircraft over the obscured one. Then again, why not include both images? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The only relevant policy edict I can think of is, "No consensus for change". Whichever was there fist can stay there (assuming somebody can be bothered to restore it, if that is applicable). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The second image is not a photo of the accident aircraft; it's a photo of parts of the accident aircraft sticking out from the background: not very useful to any reader who doesn't already know how a 707 looks like. The first image is better, and is also enough; no need to keep them both either. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)