Talk:British Airways Flight 5390

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Accidents

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.

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.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Apparent discrepancies with source

[1] I happened to glance at that page, and it's clear the article conflicts with it in at least a few ways. Random examples:

Source says The other two cabin staff instructed the passengers to fasten their seat belts, reassured them and took up their emergency positions.; the article currently says the other two flight attendants ... reassured passengers, and instructed them to adopt brace positions in anticipation of an emergency landing -- not the same.
Source simply points out the difference between a "plug" window and one installed from the exterior, but doesn't call it any kind of design "flaw" or "inadequacy"; the article calls it an inadequacy.

Perhaps some of these discrepancies are due to other sources, but I suspect these are just errors that crept in, and that there are others. E Eng 18:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We changed "design flaw" after you spotted it, didn't we? I seem to remember putting in "non-optimal"? Perhaps "inadequacy" is just as bad. I did a Google search for terms like that, but drew a blank. The design has certainly now changed, but I couldn't find anything to directly connect the two. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that changed "sub-optimal design" to "design inadequacy" because it sounded better to me. The point is that in order to avoid plagiarism we are encouraged to put things in our own words (sure I've read that somewhere in citing sources, can't be bothered to go searching for it now) and that inevitably runs the risk of introducing slight changes in semantics, call it Chinese Whispers, but other than reciting the source material verbatim, what are we supposed to do? A certain amount of subjective interpretation has to be expected. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we ought to really only use quotes from the official report, as those words have been very carefully chosen. But there is certainly only a mention of "plug" type, nothing about design inadequacy etc. We'd have to look elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither sub-optimal design nor design inadequacy nor (as was there before any of us got here) design flaw is supported by the the aviatioinchief source nor by the source cited in the article (p7 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422faa7e5274a131400078d/1-1992_G-BJRT_2_.pdf). It was a design choice, nothing more. I've changed the article to reflect that. E Eng 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good change. Even if you used too many nors there. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a "design flaw" or "inadequacy", the design is more than sufficiently strong enough to resist internal cabin pressure as long as the proper fixings are used, otherwise the ARB would not have Certificated the One-Eleven design back in the 1960s. The windscreen was designed that way in order to simplify windscreen replacement in case of damage caused by hail, bird strike, normal wear, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.25 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add the images that you will find, these are reenactments

The images that are widespread are re-enactments and neither are really images of the incident, do not add them to this article. source Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Susan Gibbins

Should she perhaps be mentioned by name in the "while the other two flight attendants secured loose objects, reassured passengers, and instructed them to adopt brace positions in anticipation of an emergency landing." part somehow? Personally, I found it very jarring that she is first and only mentioned in the award section with no description of what she did during the incident. Potential source: https://simpleflying.com/british-airways-flight-5390-a-cabin-crew-perspective/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-15/ba5390-pilot-sucked-out-windscreen-the-ultimate-nightmare/101813438 2601:647:4200:6ED:3076:E78D:418E:35ED (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article really sucks?

One problem with "blown out" is that this can be misinterpreted as being caused by an explosive device? It's simply a case of low pressure outside the aircraft and high pressure inside. The result is the same. Sichuan Airlines Flight 8633 says "sucked out". Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 says "blown out" (although one of the external sources has "sucked"). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]