Talk:Vickers VC.1 Viking

Fair use rationale for Image:Vickers Nene Viking G-AJPH.jpg

Image:Vickers Nene Viking G-AJPH.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 insure 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) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vickers Viking 1a - G-AGRN.jpg

Image:Vickers Viking 1a - G-AGRN.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 insure 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) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Routes

I was looking up this article because I remember flying on Vikings on the London - Entebbe route in the 1950s, a flight which involved several stops, including two overnight. When the Viscount came in, it completely altered the journey. I am not completely sure which airline operated the route but I think it was Hunting-Clan. However, the point is that this unpressurised aircraft was used for comparatively long journeys and not just within Europe. I cannot cite any references, so have made no alteration to the text. --MWLittleGuy (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the European bit is related to the use by British European Airways. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• That memory might relate to Trek Airways. Jan olieslagers (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where should the line be drawn on the "Accidents and incidents" list?

I was wondering where the line should be drawn on the "Accidents and incidents" list. Currently there are 10 accidents listed, and a note at the top points out that in total there were 56 aircraft lost in accidents. (The full list of Viking losses can be seen here.) WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE explains that any accident involving a hull loss is considered notable enough for an article on an aircraft type. However, listing all 56 Viking hull losses in the main Viking article would result in the accident listing dominating much of the article.

The 10 accidents currently listed include the 7 most deadly ones, plus a few others. One of these is the 1948 Berlin Viking/Yak-3 collision. It was certainly among the worst and of peculiar nature, so it definitely belongs here, though I will point out that 3 other crashes which killed more are not listed. The 1958 crash of a Viking into a house is somewhat more arguable, though the fact that a house was hit might give it special significance; still, it only killed 7 in total, which puts it behind a couple of other crashes not listed.

Finally there is the 1948 Glasgow-Renfrew crash, which killed no one, though the aircraft was destroyed. Yesterday I decided that this definitely didn't belong in the list, since I could see nothing to make it more noteworthy than many other crashes which weren't listed. In particular, there are 12 unlisted fatal crashes in all. However, Cj1340 reverted my deletion, since he felt the crash was notable. But if it's notable enough to be in this list, that implies all or most of the 56 hull losses should also be listed here, and as I said this seems excessive.

Of course, some of the unlisted accidents could be added to the list, particularly the most fatal ones. I just think some thought should be given as to what to include and what to leave out. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no straightforward answer. I would say a hull loss or fatalities. Compare the recent Boeing 777 incident at Heathrow; this is similar to the Viking incident mentioned in so far as hull loss and no fatalities. But important? I think so Cj1340 (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with listing all the accidents on this page become the size and perhaps undue weight in the article. If the accidents and incidents section was spun off as List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers VC.1 Viking then a summary of the worst and any trends can be in this article. Although it probable needs more work have a look at List of accidents and incidents involving the Avro York which list all hull losses which tends to be more tollerated in stand alone articles when a type had had more than a few accidents. Although in the case of the York the list in the main article could probable be pruned down a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One solution would be split the crashes off into a sub article so they don't overwhelm the main article - Notability does not of course equal number of deaths or damage but non-trivial coverage in reliable sources - as such some of the less fatal (or even non fatal/non-hull loss incidents, such as the Viking that survived the in-flight explosion of a saboteur's bomb) may belong.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Created List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers VC.1 Viking - needs links and stuff to be done but a starter. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick and not unrelated question - was looking at G-AHPN - how common is a public inquiry following a crash? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the general opinion expressed here that the Wp:Weight issue should be paramount and nothing wrong with a sub-article, is there? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

I agree with the above remarks. By the way, Cj1340, there is one big difference between the 1948 Glasgow-Renfrew crash and the recent Boeing 777 hull loss at Heathrow: such hull losses for major airliners are far less common today than they were in the late 1940s, due to vastly improved safety standards. So an event which is extremely notable now might have been only mildly notable in the 1940s. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Accidents of yesteryear had a higher degree of pilot error than contemporary ones. The 777 crash at SF is 100% pilot error, but one of the few. Older machines were certainly harder to fly, and pilot training was basic. The Lockheed 14 types were a good example, being very unforgiving of bad handling at any speed. ANA of Australia found that WW2 pilots did not make attentive airline pilots, and after a series of pilot-error crashes, govt-funded TAA was created. It was intended to, and did, set their safety and training standards in the 50s.220.240.252.16 (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)