Talk:Kegworth air disaster

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kegworth air disaster article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 8, 2005, January 8, 2006, January 8, 2007, January 8, 2008, and January 8, 2009.

Untitled

I added in the classic 'it's the le... it's the right' line and also the sad outcome for the two pilots.

John

I've edited the crash infobox to include the photo - a lot of people don't realize that the infobox allows for photos to be placed right in it. --Charlene 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good move - it looks better like that. Ian Dunster 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper name

"Kegworth air disaster" is not supposed to be the name of this page. It should be "British Midland Flight 092" because the plane has a flight number. --202.95.200.14 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so - WikiProject Aviation guidelines state that "For commercial aircraft with flight numbers, the standard is: <<airline>> Flight <<flight number>>.... Exceptions: if the event has acquired a popular name, that name should be used."

The title should therefore remain as "Kegworth air disaster". 82.44.26.36 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the disaster is populary called the Kegworth Air Disaster? 202.95.200.12 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this accident is popularly known as the "Kegworth Air Disaster", certainly in the UK, and the article name should remain. SempreVolando 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities/Survivors/Persons on board do not add up

79 survivors + 47 fatalities = 128 people. The article says 118 passengers + 8 crew = 126 people.

Where did the extra two people come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.109.116 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

79+47=126. 9+7=16, put down the 6, carry the 1; 7+4+1=12, making 126. Your math is wrong, unsigned.

So I move to delete this topic unless someone else has something to say about it. Kelelain (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Kelelain (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiring

The statement that the fire warnings were not cross-wired is meaningless to the average reader. If this is important, please add an explanation of what it means and what its significance is.Bill (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Site on Google Maps

The crash site is here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=east+midlands+airport&f=q&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=52.831356,-1.299257&spn=0.002217,0.005021&t=k&z=18&om=1 Don't know if that's worth adding as a link on the article; feel free to do so if it is (I'm a Wikinoob). --BigglesZX 06:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this page vandalised?

I found this in the write-up...

"smoke and flames had been seen from the super cockpit nose engine"

Maybe it's an honest mistake...

Sorry... not sure how to correct it myself.

Fair use rationale for Image:Kegworth Air Crash Scene.jpg

Image:Kegworth Air Crash Scene.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stretching the glide... not

I have removed a sentence that related how the pilot heroically avoided hitting not just the nearest school, but the whole nearest village by "stretching the glide".

In fact, during a glide the aircraft is already flown at the speed which gives the best glide ratio (i.e., distance covered over loss of altitude); either increasing the speed (by pitching down), or reducing it (by pitching up) will result in a shorter distance covered over the ground. The only way of increasing the glide ratio is by reducing drag, e.g., by rising flaps/slats/gear, feathering props if applicable, etc., but the sentence I have removed specifically mentions a pitch down action and very much looks like sourced from poor journalism (judging by the obligatory mention of missing a village. It is a joke amongst pilots that one of the first actions in the forced landing checklist is finding a school to avoid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.1.115 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old accident report

The report was at

http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/gobme/gobmerep.htm

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jet exhaust

Shouldn't it be that the jet fuel was ignited by the jet exhaust, and not vise versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.27.56 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causes - Smell of Smoke

'Seconds to disaster' says that the smell of smoke was caused by the autothrottle feeding too much fuel in an attempt to maintain the expected speed of rotation in the damaged engine. Before the pilot could shutdown the other engine, he had to disengage the autothrottle at which point the fuel feed reduced to a rate appropriate the actual engine speed. This also allowed the engine to slow down and reduced the vibration. In summary the reduction of smell and vibration was _not_ a coincidence as the article states at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.199.156 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see what you're saying, but it was a coincidence in the sense that the smoke and vibration reduced after shutting down the right (properly working) engine, even though that engine had nothing to do with the problem. Captain Quirk (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shutting down the wrong engine

Hunt's explanation about shutting down the wrong engine was debunked by the AAIB, so I removed it from the lede where it was stated as a causal factor. (It's still there in the body of the article). The AAIB's analysis (p98) reads in part:

His assessment was not supported by the evidence because the fumes had been perceived in the cockpit, and it was not for some time that he was able to confirm that there had also been smoke in the passenger cabin. It seems unlikely that in the short time before he took action his thoughts about the air conditioning system could have had much influence on his decision. It is considered more likely that, believing the first officer had seen positive indications on the engine instruments, he provisionally accepted the first officer's assessment.

80.2.106.75 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The severe vibration of the unbalanced engine cause the vibration meters (and other instruments) to become blurred and unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Needed - I have a Suggestion

I don't know how appropriate this suggested source is, but for many of the spots where the footnote is needing a citation, those specific items are brought up in the Smithsonian Channel series, Air Disasters, by Cineflix Productions. I believe Air Disasters has several sister series: Mayday, Air Emergency, and Why Planes Crash are a few that come to mind. The episode name is Choosing Sides, original air date 06 Mar 2015. Since I'm not sure if this is a good citation, I'll just leave this information here, and let someone else decide if it's an appropriate source, or at least leads to one. Kelelain (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move 5 March 2021

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: Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kegworth air disaster → British Midland Flight 92 – Most articles with titles of this style concern multiple flights (example: Tenerife airport disaster). However, this article concerns a single flight only. Therfore, I believe that, for consistency, this article should be moved to the linked target. This move has been previously proposed, but the last discussion was fourteen years ago, so it's worth it to see if consensus has changed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd personally prefer constancy with articles on accidents involving a single aircraft with a flight number being named after that flight number. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some events get there own names through the effect they have on public consciousness eg Munich air disaster even if the casualties are less than other events. WP:Commonname is a higher level policy that overrides "consistency". GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose commonname reigns supreme. Andrewgprout (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. ~ HAL333 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no, we don't need arbitrary commonality when this is known by literally everyone in the universe as the Kegworth air disaster. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, pretty obvious where this is going. If no one opposes, I'll self-SNOW close myself. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.