Jump to content

Talk:Eurocopter AS350 Écureuil/Archive 1

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

Fennec

Found a Eurocopter Fennec article. Wondering if there is any thoughts on splitting the Fennec material out of the Ecureuil article? --Born2flie 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Go ahead and split the material out, or I'll do it myself Sunday after some sleep! As far as to the military operators, many countries use the regular versions as trainers; we'll have to find out which use which. Of course, this assumes it ought to stay separate. Is the Fennec really that common? I don't know. THere's not much on that page, so it might make better sense to merge them. (Ducking, just in case a rotor get tossed in my direction!)
I noticed neither article has a single link to the other. I've seen both before myself, but I never caught that. I'll have to try to notice stuff like this better. Happens more than it should that similar articles are created with no knowledge of or links to the other. We might take this issue up with the RTF, to do some thorough searching to catch things like this with rotorcraft articles. - BillCJ 07:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Service ceiling possibly incorrect

Hello The Service ceiling is given as 5,280 m (17,323 ft) on this article, yet the standard-configured Ecureuil touched and took off down at 8,850 meters for the world record. Was it really a standard version, if so, shouldn't the service ceiling be much higher? Derek Scaith 07:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing operator

There's a country missing in the operators list. The "Flugpolizei" of the Austrian ministry of interior (-> law enforcement) is currently operating five AS 350 B1, two AS 355 F2 and two AS 355 N. Source is the official page of the "Flugpolizei": http://www.bmi.gv.at/flugpolizei/ (German language!)


there r hundrets of operators not listet if u noticed, austria with 5 astars is just not that ..., would should i say. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.220.130 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AS355 Variants

I would be very grateful for any information and a specific confirmation that the HCC1 variant of the AS355F series does in fact have the C20R engines not the C20F standard ones.

Could the data sheet be updated to mention the STC/upgrade option that is available owned by Starflex LLC. The Helilynx one you mention is actualy a copy of the original Eurocopter/Allison one which Starflex now owns, designed and approved in 1991. The STC's are approved by the FAA, Transport Canada and EASA under the following references:

AS355 F1 : STC Ref FAA SH7961SW-D, Transport Canada SH91-33, EASA. IM.R.S.01203 - AS355 F1R

AS355 F2 : STC Ref FAA SH7962SW-D, Transport Canada SH91-34, EASA. IM.R.S.01201 - AS355 F2R

80.9.25.82 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

McRae

Have, for the time being, removed the part that was added to the article concerning the death of rally driver Colin McRae. I believe it is unethical to feature such information in an article other than the one about the person in question so soon after their death. The return of this information may well make an informative addition to the article at a later date.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.160.73 (talk • contribs)

Unethical? How? Please, don't remove legitimate sourced info. And you might want to note that the original item posted in the article stated that McRae was killed by one of these! At least what is here now is of better encyclopedic value. It is normal to list incidents in aircraft articles as soon as sourced info is available. If you feel the practice is unethical, take it up at WP:AIR, but don't fight the battle here. - BillCJ 22:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll note that Princess Diana, infinitely more famous than Colin McRae, was killed in a Mercedes-Benz S280, yet the article on the car makes no note of the sad fact. Indeed, that article is quite properly not festooned with death notices of the many, and sometimes even famous, people who have figured out how to kill themselves while in an Mercedes.
My recommendation is the usual one: maintain strict, unwavering, focus. Do not be afraid of wikilinks. Recognize that links in many cases are one-way, like diodes. So: this article doesn't need a link to Colin McRae, as no one has presented any evidence he had little to do with the helicopter beyond dying in one. However, the article on Colin McRae certainly can use a link to this article regarding the announcement of his unexpected demise. mdf 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
YOu might have a point if this were the only aircraft airticle to do this, but it's not. THis practice has been in place since long before I joined Wikipedia one year ago, tho I do support it. And again, you are welcome to try to address the WP:AIR Aircraft project directly with your concerns. However, focusing just on this article is not the best way to accomplish change, unless you're only concerned with McRae, and not other notable people who have died in aircraft accidents, such as Payne Stewart. I should not that there will probably be an article created soon on McRae's accident itself, but to my knowledge such an article has not yet been posted. Once that happens, some of the details and sources in this article and his bio page will be cut back to the bare minimum, with a main link added to the accident page.
Also, there are far more cars in the world than aircraft, and like it or not, aircraft accidnets tend to be more notable on there own, and especially when well-known personalities are involved. Finally, by all accounts so far, McRae was the pilot, and even owned the helicopter, so to say all he had to do with it was dying in it is not really a complete statement. However, even if he were only a passenger in someone else's aircraft, it would probably still merit a mention here. - BillCJ 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
When I said "focus on the article", I mean focus on the article. That is to say, you look at the article as a single, self-contained entity first, then consider it's relationship to others. The former usually means culling useless, irrelevant, and the trivial: the barnacular build up of info-fluff. Even if it is published by 10,000 reliable sources and no on questions it, the fact some of these helicopters may be painted purple (I hope not!) just isn't "encyclopedic". And so it is with how many famous people have died owning one, flying one, travelling in one, or just simply looking at one, at least as far as this article should be concerned. Any other approach will ultimately lead to a confusing collection of disconnected facts and figures. Focus focus focus! (And this is a good article as it is, by the way.)
The latter is one of discerning the real connections. In this case, we can see (I hope!) that McRae's private decisions as to what helicopter he chose to buy and fly more to do with the helicopter per se an/or his history with then prior to purchase than with some other famous personage owning one. (Just like how Princess Diana or whoever owned that car just got whatever they got because they were given a good price, it solved some particular problem, etc. Details which would indeed be important in an article on this helicopter as they are owner independent to a large extent.) Contrast this against the content of Colin McRae (and Princess Diana) article, which will be very interested indeed how the man died. Can you sense the asymmetry, and why the encyclopedia should reflect it?
As to the stuff about "more cars than planes", you are perhaps confusing lack of media mention with lack of notability (and certainly making a false inference that a great media circus implies high notability). Small aircraft accidents are, by and large, ignored by almost everyone except professional (and otherwise) pilots who are naturally anxious about their continued survival. (A similar genre of literature exists in the rock climbing community, with accident reports published on a regular basis from various sources.) Large, usually passenger, aircraft events are big media extravaganza's nowadays, the prospect of a tens or hundreds of burning bodies, towering columns of black smoke above a splash of flicking orange flame on the nightly news or morning paper just can't be resisted. Simply put: had it been you or me flying that helicopter, no one would have cared a damn at our expiration. Nevertheless, the event would either be an important one for the helicopter or it would not be. Consider Alaska Airlines Flight 261, which killed no one famous at all, but stands as a highly important event in the history of the MD 83. Has McRae's passing brought to light a safety problem or other issue directly related to the the aircraft? If so, it goes here. If not, the whole episode can be safely punted to McRae's article to keep the clutter where it belongs. mdf 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with alot of what you said in your last paragraph, but it's too bad you didn't say all that up front. I can only deal with what you say, not what you don't say. We've gone from it's "unethical" to "focus on the article", and I can't wait to see what comes up next! You might even want to check the history of this article, along with several other aircraft articles I've edited in the last week, and see where I have removed what I consider non-notable incidents from the article. Many factors go into making an incident/accident notable, and famous occupants are one of those factors. We honestly don't know yet if the McRae crash will be notable for the airframe or not at this point, and given the attention the crash has drawn, I think it best to leave it here for now. I've removed the other crash (Chelsea VP) before, and it came back, so I think if you remove this one, it will come back too. We can't get too worked up over things like this (as I have on the articles I referred to), and most of the time they'll fade away within a few weeks - which is a good sign they AREN'T notable! But it's not unethical to leave it here for now. You might want to participate in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, which is working on notability guidelines for crashes and articles, among other things. - BillCJ 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to split achieved. - BillCJ (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Rationale - I am proposing that we split the article into Eurocopter AS350 and Eurocopter AS355, with this page becoming a DAB, and including the EC 130B in the list. The article is a bit muddled trying to cover both the single and twin versions, and there Variants list is quite lengthy. Splitting the "Operators" section (also lengthy) will be a bit difficult, but the rest should be straightforward. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operators

In splitting the Eurocopter Ecureuil article into the Eurocopter AS350 and Eurocopter AS355, I was faced with the decision of how to split the operators section. Most of the entries, especially in the Military section, did not specify which version was used. I kept the entries that specified the models, but not the others. Many of the entries did have references that may specify the models, so if someone wants to do some research to re-add these entires, this diff has the full list just before I split the sections. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing Country

Someone should add Canada also uses this aircraft and model(used by the RCMP). I do not have enough powere(yet) to add things like this so can added for me? That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--PokemontrainerNelly (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Midair collisions

I would think that *any* midair collision is of sufficient notability, regardless of what the guideline says. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Eurocopter AS350B.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Eurocopter AS350B.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Eurocopter AS350
The Eurocopter AS350 (AStar in North America) is a single-engined light helicopter originally manufactured by Aérospatiale (now part of Eurocopter Group). It is a popular model, being used worldwide in many civilian, law enforcement, and military organisations. One variant became the first helicopter ever to land on Mount Everest.Photo: Benjamint444
Archive – More featured pictures...

How many people does it carry ?

One would think this would be mentioned.Eregli bob (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Eurocopter Name Change

Now that Eurocopter has changed their name to Airbus Helicopters, is it not time to change this article, and replace all links and references to Eurocopter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.230.223 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that it has to mention the change twice in the first sentence of the lede? --Born2flie (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Eurocopter AS350

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Eurocopter AS350's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "World Air Forces 2014":

  • From NHIndustries NH90: "World Air Forces 2014" (PDF). Flightglobal Insight. 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 17 January 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota: "World Air Forces 2014" (PDF). Flightglobal Insight. 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Former operators

Please note that as a project we dont distinguish between former and current operators, all former operators are identified with reliable sources when they appear in the list of operators there is no need to break them out, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurocopter_AS350_Écureuil/Archive_1&oldid=1257969714"