Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British European Airways Flight 548/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 19 August 2010 [1].

British European Airways Flight 548

[edit]

British European Airways Flight 548 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...Second nomination, first review was archived due to lack of reviewers. Minimal edits since last nomination, full nomination rationale given at last FAC. This article describes a particularly tragic aircraft accident that had far-reaching consequences for the airline industry. It could be 'heavy going' for some readers but I have attempted to explain all technical terms. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Information contained in the footnotes requires citation, the same as it would if included in the text. At present, none of the footnoted information carries a citation. Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you advise me how to do that please? I tried adding a standard cite after the footnote template but it did not include it in the footnote section, do I just add the author and page numbers in the footnote template? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put the cite within the footnote, just before "group= nb". Ping me if you have further difficulty doing this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, simple when you know how. I have added citations to all the footnotes except one which itself is directing the reader to a chapter in the linked official report. I have removed one footnote regarding the flight deck graffiti wording and placed it on the talk page until a source can be found for it. It was attributed to the official accident report but I can not find it in there, it was added by another editor as it was originally a cite in the 'ibid' format. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In "Captain Key's outburst", you mention that the graffiti was analyzed by a handwriting expert during the investigation... did the graffiti "artist" end up being involved in the accident? Who was it? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Naples incident", I would only wikilink "Foxtrot Hotel" to the phonetic alphabet, not the whole phrase "Foxtrot hotel incident". -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Stall warnings section", the last sentence of the first paragraph confuses me. "Key held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure and levelled the wings, but his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." First you say that his action was contrary to the normal procedure, and then you say "but", as if something unexpected happened. Would this work for you? "Key held the aircraft's nose up, contrary to normal stall recovery procedure, and levelled the wings, which had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe include some sort of reference for the violence of the impact... I know that a 23 m/s descent rate is very high, but maybe comparing it to a normal landing descent rate or something would give readers a sense of scale. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that public inquires are uncommon for aircraft accidents... maybe mention one or two other cases where public inquiries were held? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that the captain's "distressing arterial event" was intrepeted by the public as a heart attack... was it a heart attack, or was it misinterpreted by the public? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "unserviceability" mean? Does it mean the part was not regularly maintained, or that it was located where it could not be maintained? Would the crew have known that the valve was in bad shape?-SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of a large comment -- you mention in the FAC nom that the accident had far reaching implications. After reading the article, the only major result of the accident seems to be that voice recorders were mandated for most British passenger aircraft. Were there any other implications? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support a fine read, though I have one concern in the Accident synopsis section the first paragraph of the crew are listed in the P1,P2,P3 format when describing their position on the crew. Immediately this is followed with their personals detail of age, experience but the order is altered to P1,P3,P2 which is apparently according to level of experience. Given that one of the issues already noted was that P3 had more experience than many P2 which was the cause of a dispute I would have thought that since the dispute was worth mentioning in the article and that the crew were an example of the dispute, it would be better to keep the crew order in the paragraph unaltered. I dont see any reason not to support on this issue just high lighting something that was disconcerting when reading to the point where I went back over the paragraph looking for what wasnt making sense. Gnangarra 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note
I am away on holiday for the next few days (till 12/8), will pop in if I can get Wi-Fi access, apologies for any delay in replying. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An engaging and interesting article, with a good balance of technical information and narrative as befits a general encyclopedia article. I have reviewed the whole text and could only make a few very minor edits to it. I think it is ready for FA. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Crum375

[edit]
  • Oppose - I feel the article has definite FA potential, but as it stands it is short on neutrality and fails WP:WIAFA-1(d). The main problem is that it appears to assign disproportionate weight to minority or tiny-minority opinions, which contradict the majority view, as expressed by the AIB report. I believe the nominator is very cooperative, and commend him for his hard work and sincere efforts to improve the situation, but there are still many open issues. I will keep helping out, and give this high priority, but I want to be sure it's clear that in my opinion the article is not FA-ready as it stands. I hope this can be rectified soon. Crum375 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review this FAC, and I have read the article and the main source, the AIB report. Overall, I think the article is well written, highly detailed and well researched. I will try to focus here mostly on technical issues, WP:WIAFA-1(b),(c),(d), leaving formatting, style and other criteria to others. I may add more points as I dig deeper into it, but here is a starting batch:

  • Under "Operational background":
    • "Due to their very nature, however, the stall warning and recovery systems tended to over-react." This is contradictory to the AIB report, which states that there is no known case of "over-reacting", or improper activation, especially not the stick pusher.
  • The cited page 10 of the report covers this, broken down it says there were 10 reported incidents between 1965-73, one ground incident, one on takeoff, four genuine and one probable genuine (I made if five genuine for 'half' of 10) which leaves three not explained in the report. Report does say that there were no false in-flight activations which the article does state. I have removed Due to their very nature, however, as I didn't like it, added a cite for where the stall warning and recovery systems tended to over-react comes from. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still saying "The stall warning and recovery systems tended to over-react." According to the AIB, for stick pusher, there was not a single case (in flight) of improper pusher activation, contradicting the quoted sentence. As for the shaker, as I read the AIB report, there were suspected premature activations, but AFAICT not one had been verified as such by the AIB. In other words, AFAICT, there isn't a single instance where there was an in-flight shaker activation verified to have occurred at a speed and configuration where it shouldn't have, although some pilots did complain about it. As bottom line, as I read the AIB report, I don't see any reason to objectively malign either the stick shaker or the pusher, although pilots of that era, unused to those devices "taking over" for them, were naturally suspicious of them. I understand that other sources may make the statement about the mis-activations, but that would have to be balanced against the AIB which seems to contradict it, and the AIB's position, which represents the mainstream, carries a lot more weight, per my general points below). Crum375 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice of action there seems to be to remove the Bartelski source, I cannot account for the contradiction. If both sources are there then the reader can decide which one is more accurate. Bartelski is a reliable source by our definition, to not use it would not 'exhaust all sources', something I've been 'grilled' about at FAC before. Very difficult to say in the article 'I think this source is not quite right'. Let me have a look at some of your other points, no early night for me!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) My understanding of NNPOV is that the editor should have a neutral point of view which is something I work very hard at and I believe am using in this article. If the sources don't have neutral point of views then that's unavoidable but if one of the views is obviously adrift (UNDUE?) then that should be clipped. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV tells us that the views presented in the article must represent the reliably published ones, in rough proportion to their prevalence among those sources. It also tells us to present those views in a neutral fashion, so as not to appear to favor any one side. In this case, you have the AIB report which represents mainstream and the overwhelming majority view, and a single individual writing an article or a book; the mainstream view should take precedence by far. If the minority view is significant, it can be mentioned, but it should not appear to be on equal footing with the majority. This has nothing to do with our own views as editors, it's just a question of how to relate to the readers what the prevailing and significant views are, in a neutral fashion. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BEA Trident pilots distrusted the protection systems; questioned informally, over half of them said that they would disable the systems on activation." This is not what the AIB says. It seems one captain performed a private interview of some colleagues, and got one result, while the investigators got another (conflicting) result. The AIB report speculates as to the reason of the discrepant results. The wiki article seems to ignore all that, and take the captain's results only.
  • Under "Accident synopsis":
    • The article says "At 1,000 feet (300 m) the flight entered cloud and encountered stronger turbulence." Where is the source for that? Is it speculation? If the latter, we need to specify whose. Also, on a similar vein, "At 16:10:55 (145 seconds) and 1,000 feet (300 m), the Trident broke cloud..." If it's speculative, we need to specify the speculator.
  • Both from Stewart, cites added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, it would contradict the AIB, since it's not in the AIB report, which is supposed to be the final word on these issues. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If Stewart claims this was somehow measured, it would be an exceptional claim, since the flight crew all died in the crash, and would require exceptional sources. If he is just speculating, I think in the section where the accident sequence is being described factually speculations do not belong, or should at the very least be clearly highlighted as such. Crum375 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is adding something that is not in the AIB report then he's not strictly contradicting it to my mind. On the same page he says the flight entered 'intermittent cloud' at 690 feet. A very accurate altitude and I don't know where he is getting that from, I think the weather report comes from a Flight International which is cited elsewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that doesn't make any sense, and would invoke WP:REDFLAG. The only way to know the altitude at which the aircraft entered (or exited) the clouds is from the flight crew, which are all dead. If there was some other magical way to do it, which would defy even today's technology, let alone that of 30 years ago, the AIB would have mentioned it. It seems to me this source is just speculating, in which case it needs to be stated and justified, since the much more professional source, the AIB, have not so speculated. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I looked at his words again 'flying through intermittent cloud passing 690 feet the left turn was initiated'. I think he is reading the height from the graph given in the accident report and relating it to a heading change. If I did that it would be original research or synthesis. The 'clouds at 690 ft' part is not in the article, all we are using here is that the aircraft climbed through the cloud base at 1,000 ft and descended back through it which I don't think is contentious (the weather conditions are cited from Flight I think). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The weather doesn't tell you when a specific aircraft enters or exits a cloud at a specific time. Only the crew can, since they have the altimeters and their eyes. A general ceiling of 1000 ft can easily have scud under it, or some local holes in it, so it could be +/- 500 feet or more. I see no reason to mention speculative information, not mentioned by the main reliable source. Do you have a quote from Flying (or any other professional source) saying the aircraft entered or exited clouds at X feet? Crum375 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weather at the time (with a main cloudbase of 1,000 ft and lower cloud at 600 ft) is given on page 2 of the accident report, Stewart then I assume is using this to fill his 'portrayal of events'. The choice here is to remove all reference to the cloudbase which I think would be wrong. A significant point that is not currently highlighted in the article (but is on page 2 of the report) is that the crew were on instruments for some of the flight, that does need to be added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prevailing weather is only indirectly related to when an aircraft actually enters or exits a cloud layer. Only the flight crew can tell you, and they are dead in this case. Anything else is wild speculation, and if critically needed, should be noted as such. Since this section describes a factual play-by-play of the undisputed events, inserting a wild speculation into it seems unprofessional. If the main reliable source had made that speculation (beyond just that they were "in cloud during crucial times and had no visual reference") I could see using it, but in this case, they didn't. I doubt very much you'd find any professional source (e.g. government aviation agency or professional flight journal) making such speculation without a very good justification and explanation. Regarding being "on instruments", airline flights are always on instruments, and if you mean "operating solely in reference to their instruments" (IMC), that would require knowing the exact cloud layer at that specific time again, which we don't. Crum375 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I twisted my summarised words of the report in my tired state, what it actually says is It follows that at the crucial times the aircraft was in cloud and the crew had no visual reference which is speculation on their part but it's official. I think to fix this a summary of this sentence needs to be inserted immediately after the cited weather conditions and remove Stewart's inference that the aircraft ascended through cloud at 1,000 ft and then descended back through it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as I noted above, the AIB say that "it follows" that the aircraft was without visual reference during "crucial times". That is a reasonable and professional speculation, and vague enough to be highly likely. As I noted below, in my general comments, you should try to follow the AIB wherever possible. I would only use other sources to add "color" or make some connections, so long as the AIB are not contradicted. Of course neutrality is also an issue, so it's important not to use the AIB selectively, and for that using their top level summaries as a basis is best. Crum375 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added the cloud base height from the AIB report and added a cited footnote on the lack of visual references (I am trying to avoid adding text to an already 'busy' section). Removed Stewart's reference to entering cloud but left a general 'broke cloud' for the descent (still attributed to Stewart but no specific height given).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better now, but there are still two points I can see: a) the 600 ft clouds are not mentioned; and b) there is still mention of "encountered stronger turbulence" which implies we know for sure it was stronger inside the clouds than just under, for example. I don't see any support for the latter in the AIB report, or any way of otherwise knowing that. I would say something like "at some point in its climb the aircraft entered clouds..." to emphasize we don't know at what altitude it occurred (e.g. it could have entered the 600 ft clouds). Crum375 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Key pulled the nose up once more to reduce airspeed slightly to the required 175 knots" (emphasis added) - this was not "required" in the sense that in that flight regime, with the droops retracted, a much higher speed was "required". Perhaps if the captain was unaware of the droop retraction he would have thought the 175 kt was required, but that would be speculative, while at this stage in the article the text should be more factual.
  • Under "Investigation and public inquiry":
    • "However, the underlying cause of the accident was stated to have been Key's heart condition." This appears to be wrong on at least two levels: First, the word "however" conveys that what follows is the "real" reason, i.e. it violates WP:NPOV and WP:WTW. Second, the "underlying cause" list contains seven items, while only the first one is mentioned by WP.


  • Under "Alternative theories in defence of Captain Key":
    • This section seems to promote fringe-ish views, which is fine IMO, as long as they are clearly presented as such. For example, WP presents an unsourced quote: "In simple words: what the FDR records is not necessarily the same as what the captain sees on his panel." First, all quotes should have in-line citation per WP:V, and second, anything which goes against mainstream needs a clear in-text attribution, so it doesn't seem WP itself is saying it.
Bartelski quotes (and some others) are now directly attributed by name in the text. Other in-line quotes have their source (name of person quoting) in a cite a few words away. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this is a "fringe theory" since it is the opinion of one person, vs. the mainstream as represented by the AIB. I don't believe the AIB considers there to be any difference between the FDR readout and the pilot's altimeter or airspeed instruments. Since the AIB did their work openly and published their results, one would expect any scientifically or technically sound dissenting view to be widely recorded. In this case, all I see is the mainstream report, and one person (with unknown qualifications) disputing it, with no secondary source reviewing the dissenting view and putting it in perspective. I am not saying we should suppress his view, since it appears to be reliably published, but OTOH, per NPOV, we should reduce the space given to it, and make it very clear that this opinion contradicts the AIB/mainstream's view. It might also make sense to explain who the author is, and his background, so the reader has some idea of how to frame his view. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, related to this, the article says, "Elements of this alternative reading were examined favourably by the Lane Inquiry,[nb 9] but failed to find their way into any of its conclusions or recommendations." without a source. The note tells us to read the Speeds section, which I re-read, and I can't find where the AIB "examines favorably" this issue. In fact, the entire issue of a possible discrepancy between the FDR and the pilots' panel instruments is not mentioned at all (AFAICT). So unless there is something I missed, this would violate NOR, NPOV, and WIAFA-1(d).
  • I think I deleted all that plus the footnote (which I turned into a cite for the relevant page where this aspect was investigated). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that entire "Alternative" section is way too prominent as compared to the mainstream/AIB. NPOV specifically tells us that majority and minority, esp. tiny minority, don't get equal billing. In this case, reading the section it sounds that this theory is widely accepted (or at least not a tiny minority one) and the AIB "reviewed it" in some way, without explaining what that means (perhaps they decided to ignore it? suppress it?). So this section is an NPOV problem at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one largish paragraph with a level four header that is attempting to summarise 20 pages of published material (he has many other theories, only one is mentioned here), I wouldn't say it was a disproportionate size in relation to the rest of the article, I have though recently added to the end of it that the inquiry attached little importance to the speed discrepancy theory, hopefully that has balanced it. In a nutshell that paragraph should now be saying that Bartelski had a theory but the AIB discounted it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still feel this section violates NPOV by giving a tiny-minority/fringe view with an exceptional claim way too much space and emphasis. As far as I know, in the history of black boxes, there has never been a case where the airspeed readouts in the FDR were found to differ appreciably or significantly from those in the aircraft's panel. Also, in this case and black boxes aside, the panel airspeed readouts would have had to be 60kt higher than reality, which is technically unheard of (to my knowledge). For WP to present this hypothesis with this weight it would have to have a significant following among experts or other reliable sources. At this point, we have the AIB, representing the mainstream, which clearly discounts this possibility, and one pilot/author who, without evidence or precedence (to my knowledge), raises it as hypothesis. I think presenting it in this fashion is a clear NPOV/UNDUE violation. Crum375 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of the daughter's quote, again it's presenting a tiny-minority view by a non-expert. It's fine to include it in some form, e.g. a link to the source and a short summary, but to include all this quoted text, esp. at the end, lends her words more weight compared to the experts of the majority than reasonable, which would violate WP:NPOV and WIAFA-1(d). I am not against reliably-sourced minority views per se, even if promoted by relatively small groups, but such views should be clearly presented in the proper context, so the reader is not led to believe they represent a larger group and/or more underlying expertise.
  • What would be the proper context for her quote? Perhaps it needs a sub-header (but that would be highlighting her views). I have a mind to completely remove it and add it as an external link (nothing in it could be used as a reference to expand the article) as it appears to be causing a problem, would that work? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed this post before. I don't think EL is the right approach; just a sentence or two in our own words would be OK, IMO. See my 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC) message below for my suggestion. Crum375 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my judgement to add her quote recently, nothing she says in it disagrees with anything in the report as far as I can see although she quite naturally doesn't like her father being maligned. I have removed the last sentence after looking at it again as it was expressing an opinion. It should be clear from the 'Julie Key - BBC' tag at the end that this is only one person's view. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your desire to add a personal element to the story, but there are many other persons involved, dead and alive, and we can't favor just one. In this case, she is saying, "The reason for the crash was the droops being retracted too early leading to a stall. There had been several problems with this lever before – it had even been known to move on its own", which contradicts the AIB report and all known evidence about the "inadvertent activation". Allowing that statement to stand uncontested, at the end of the article, could appear to convey WP's tacit support for it, which would violate WP:NPOV, since it flies in the face of the known evidence and majority view. Crum375 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is alluding to the 'Naples incident' where the droop lever apparently moved by itself (cited to the AIB report) and 'The Schofield Theory' which is given as evidence on p.17 in the official report. That leaves modification of the droop lever which I think can be attributed to Bartelski (I believe that the aircraft were indeed modified), I am loathe to use much more of Bartelski as he does apparently come across as a 'fringe theorist'. Unfortunately her words are the only words from families or others that I could find in a reliable source, otherwise they would be included as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the full AIB report, and I know what she's alluding to, but AFAIR those were unproven allegations which the AIB discounted and concluded were plain wrong. If you disagree, please provide quote and page number where the AIB say something else. But assuming my reading is correct, her allegation of the inadvertent motion of the droops switch is unfounded, and presenting it in this fashion, esp. as the final conclusion of the article, violates NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote shortened further. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think now it seems like she's being censored, since she does say those other things. The best would be, IMO, to use our own words to indicate that Key's daughter has come out publicly denouncing what she perceives as the vilification of her father, arguing that the heart attack was only speculation and that there were mechanical problems with the plane which could have caused the accident. The shorter the better, but broad enough to cover her general points. One way of doing it is to rely on a secondary source (e.g. media report) summarizing what she said and putting it in perspective for us. Crum375 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it feels like censorship, I took her original full quote as being from a non-expert and not necessarily factually correct, I added it for balance and to get at least one perspective on the accident from a close relative of the crew. I assumed that other readers of this article would take it the same way. This is the only published reference that I have found to the opinion of Julie Key (there maybe more somewhere of course), There are more witness and rescue crew recollections of the accident on the BBC website. There is one comment from a relative of a passenger. After carefully reading them all I could not see that adding any of them (or details from them) would add to the facts and witness reports already given in the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "color" to an article takes backseat to NPOV. So unless we have a fair representation of all interested parties and views, it would violate NPOV to pick out just one, because it happens to be available, or more interesting. I do think mentioning the daughter makes sense (she is in some sense the "voice of the captain"), but only in the limited way I suggested above, so as not to give her position undue weight, and also not to distort her view by censoring it. Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bottom line: these are sample issues I can see for now, but there are more. I'll try to add them soon. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I will look at those points. I am aware that there is possible contradiction. It comes from using effectively three sources for balance, the Bartelski one in particular, as you note, and I would agree is an unproven 'fringe theory' but have been careful not to indicate that in the article, as a fellow pilot he seems to be defending the crew quite strongly, of the other 11 accidents that he covers in his book the tone is much the same. Thanks again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV requires us to present views weighted by their prevalence among the reliable sources. In the case of aviation accidents, the final report produced by the investigating agency is typically highly professional, and normally accepted by the vast majority of the media and aviation journals. There are typically also dissenting voices, representing sides or interests in the post-accident legal or professional dispute, such as pilots, controllers or victim families, trying to spin things in their favor. If there are multiple countries involved, it can get even nastier with international politics at stake. In this article's case, it's just one country, but there are still many involved parties, each with its own ax to grind. What I would do here is focus on the main AIB report, and within it its own summary conclusions, and take it from there. An example of where I see more POV in the article is where the U.S. attorney is being disparaged for making points which all seem to correspond to the AIB report, AFAICT. So I suspect that view emanates from some partisan source, perhaps a party to the litigation or one which otherwise supports one of the parties, or perhaps just a nationalist journalist. I'll get to that section (along with others) in my next batch. Crum375 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues
[edit]
  • Copilot's age and experience: According to the AIB the copilot for the flight, Key's direct backup, was a 22 year old new-hire, with 24 hours of experience as copilot. When Key had his "cardiac event" — as minimum a distraction and as maximum an incapacitation — an experienced and mature copilot would have likely more quickly recognized the near-stall condition and felt more confident to take over and override his captain. This was considered by the AIB to be an "underlying cause" for the accident (#3 and #4), yet it gets very short shrift in the article. This also ties into the labor relations issue which is described at some length: the bottom line of that labor conflict is that an inexperienced rookie new-hire ended up being tasked with backing up the captain, who was apparently distracted or incapacitated at a critical moment in the flight. This point needs to be emphasized more IMO, since at the moment a casual reader may not make that connection or its overall significance.
  • General readability: it seems to me that there is way too much detail in some areas, to the point of making the article hard to read for a non-professional, who just wants to know what happened. For example, the background sections should be trimmed: a simple summary of previous flights of relevance would suffice, IMO. In general, I would focus on the AIB summary section, use that as a skeleton, and build from there. "Exhaustion of available material" for FA requirements does not mean we must exhaust the poor (non-technical) reader trying to wade through the article.
  • Detail level: Well, I have always had this in mind, I judge it generally by article length. At around 46 kb long it is not particularly big, in fact it is smaller than the two aero engine articles that achieved FA status (they were both around 60 kb), I actually find that a little strange considering the breadth of this subject, it was making me believe that something was missing. How do you condense 60+ pages of official report, 20 pages from Bartelski, similar from Stewart, all the Flight articles and other sources into one wiki article (which comes out at 14 pages in PDF format) and get it right? A difficult task but one that editors have tried to achieve here. Parts of it are unavoidably detailed (for those who want to know everything) and other parts are more general. I am very aware that readers may not understand aviation technical terms, during the recent improvement process of this article I have attempted to clarify all technical terms by using wikilinks and sometimes a very short explanation of the term immediately following it (for readers who don't want to click the wikilink) or even add explanatory footnotes. If any poorly explained terms remain then they should be specifically highlighted and rectified. I was hoping for a review from a non-aviation minded reader to pick up on any points like this, and I always welcome it. The suggestion to use the AIB report as a skeleton to build from implies that the article should be scrapped and started again. We could, at the extreme, replace the whole article with a hatnote that says 'see AIB report' but the background information (considered so important by sources outside the AIB and public inquiry as to record it at great length) would be missing. One paragraph that could possibly be removed is the ground accident to Papa India caused by the crashing Ambassador aircraft. It is not entirely relevant but forms part of the accident Trident's history and is mentioned in references. An implication (not now in the article) was that the accident may have been caused by faulty repairs after the collision. Many aviation editors want to add detailed service history of the aircraft involved in accidents (when was it built, when did it commence airline service, what was its contructor's number? etc.) I think the history of this individual aircraft has been expanded recently and what I see there is probably the limit of what should be included, it satisfies those who want to know more about the aircraft itself, we could hope that they visit Hawker Siddeley Trident for more but then again it would not tell them the specific details of Papa India. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On readability, I can only apologise if it is unreadable, much work was done by a very adept copy editor last winter to try and improve its grammar and punctuation. There is one very important point that I would like to make about the title of this article as it concerns its scope and detail level. It appears to be convention to title air accidents by their flight number, taking the title of 'BE 548' a reader may expect just to read about the flight and not anything else to do with it. If it was titled Staines air disaster or Staines disaster they would expect to read everything about it. I can say with some confidence that virtually no one in Britain, when asked today, would tell us that 'BEA Flight 548' means nothing to them but 'Staines disaster' would mean a lot more, even recounting basic details of it. What the worldwide feeling on what this accident is called, I don't know. Pan Am Flight 103 is known similarly in the UK as the Lockerbie bombing. The current title is wrong in my opinion. WP:COMMONNAME says as much. An example of this exception to the convention is the Munich air disaster, it had a flight number (BEA coincidentally) but is not being used in the title. Whether the article title should be looked at FAC review, I don't know, perhaps it should. I do feel that the problem should be re-visited as it is wrong to me at the very least.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lane Inquiry": As I noted above, the American lawyer Kreindler is presented in a very negative light, despite the fact that the points he raises all seem validated by the AIB. This therefore needs a serious NPOV once-over.
  • Indeed he was portrayed in a negative light because of his apparent manner. His involvement takes up about 3/4 of a page in Bartelski's book. In this case Bartelski is not speculating but provides a direct quote from a newspaper report, one phrase the press apparently did not like was his calling the captain a 'sad figure ... with emotional problems' (the readable Flight report cited there repeats this as a 'sad man'). He was on a contingency fee (if he won the case he got a percentage of the compensation for the victims' families) and was noted as using tactics common in an American court that would be "deemed not acceptable in other parts of the world" and "likely to leave a bad taste in one's mouth" . I am personally slightly confused about his 'won the case' part as this was a Public Inquiry not a normal Court case, I assume that compensation would have been paid on the basis of the Inquiry's findings, it is stated I think that the compensation would have been from insurance and not by the airline or aircraft manufacturer directly as sometimes happens after a court ruling, I'm not a legal expert. Lawyers can be nasty guys, it's the nature of getting their job done. I expect it was all too much for a British court where things were done in a civil and controlled manner (they probably still are but it's not somewhere I've been to experience it thankfully). I looked at the paragraph concerning him closely (a 'once-over') to make sure it was accurate to the sources and I am satisfied that what is there follows the sources quite closely. What may be missing is an expansion on why he was apparently unpopular (some of the things I mentioned above) but that would only reinforce the apparent negativity felt towards him and this detail is available in Bartelski's book. Adding this detail might also conflict with your comment on excessive detail earlier which I have not got to replying yet as I wanted to look at this NPOV comment first. Sorry that I'm using 'apparent' frequently, I know nothing about him (or what exactly he did in that inquiry) and can only go on what I have available to read, I believe that he died quite recently but there is no wiki article on him (yet). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, we have a book by one author of unknown qualifications and background, who appears to be trashing an individual, who is apparently doing his job, and the latter's allegations appear to be supported by the AIB's findings. I understand all you say, and it all makes sense, but NPOV (and BLP if that attorney is still alive) requires us to be very careful, esp. if we are using a single source, with a possible ax to grind. If we don't have a good feel of what the "prevailing views" (international in this case) are about an individual (i.e. due to current lack of sources), having a single source which trashes him is no justification to follow suit. If the information is critical to the article, i.e. the article wouldn't make sense without it, then we can use in-text attribution, but in this case I don't see the crucial need to supply this information. For an outsider reading this, since we don't supply a rebuttal, it seems like WP itself is maligning the attorney, and I don't see any reason to do so. It certainly doesn't add any useful information to understand how or why this accident happened. Crum375 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's two sources including Flight although they don't convey quite the same level of unpopularity noted by Bartelski (whose qualifications I did summarise and add to the article a couple of days ago). Lee Kreindler died in 2003, there is more on him here from the New York Times. Surely we don't attribute all statements/opinions (not quotes) directly to an author by name every time in the text, that's what cites are for to show where it comes from and for readers to verify it for themselves if they want to? Do we judge every cited author on their qualifications or select one source from who we think is the most qualified? You appear to want his apparent unpopularity toned down when 'reliable sources' are indicating otherwise (Bartelski doesn't appear to be a 'questionable source' under the definition given at WP:RS although his views may appear one-sided to us). I should make it very clear that I have no opinion on Kreindler as a person, just trying to collate facts and opinions on the whole incident from varied sources and let the reader decide, in fact the inquiry section doesn't interest me much at all but I have to tend to it as part of the article. The 'need to supply this information' is that it is part of the public inquiry section (which itself was apparently unpopular due to the board's findings), the public inquiry needs to be covered in some form because it is closely related to this case (unless we create a separate article for it which I don't think is needed at this stage). Perhaps in the future the exact 'nitty-gritty' of what happened at the inquiry could be expanded in a split article but at 48 kb there is no need to split it yet on length grounds. I'm aware that this nomination review page is getting rather long and I hope that I didn't digress too much there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikimedia principle, so we start with the premise that everything we present must reflect the balance of views prevalent among reliable sources. But often we end up with just a couple of views, which we suspect are not universal or fully representative, e.g. because they appear partisan, or nationalistic. So we need to decide how to present the information. If it's crucial to present it, then we may resort to in-text attribution, but if the information is only tangential and/or isn't crucial, and we feel we don't really know the full spectrum of views, and that presenting just what we know may skew NPOV in one direction, we can just skip the material, or shorten it (with in-text attribution). In my opinion, this article is about the accident: how did it happen, why, where, who was involved, how was it investigated, what were the ramifications, etc. Adding a bit about an American lawyer representing some families and being disparaged by some observers is extraneous to all that, IMO. It makes the reader feel the editors had some ax to grind (anti-lawyer? anti-American? anti-pilot?), while gaining no more real information about the accident proper. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Sorry if I 'talked out of my hat there'. Perhaps I have in mind the Wikipedia:Good article criteria guideline where it says under 'Factually accurate and verifiable' that published opinion can be included. It doesn't say whether this included opinion should be good, bad or indifferent, just that it needs to be cited. Under that guideline Julie Key's quote could/should? be kept in full as it is a verifiable published opinion. A Featured Article should be no different, just sticking to that guideline even closer I would have thought. The problem comes with other guidelines that may conflict such as WP:UNDUE although it says there that ...fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Noting that it also says that minority views should not be given the same weight as the main views which I think is the case with this article by looking at the physical size of the text of the 'Alternate theory' section, not the impact on the reader that it's few words might have.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, NPOV is the fundamental policy, emanating from the foundation, and it must be the starting point, not just "balanced against others". This means that just because we happen to have a source, doesn't mean we must present it, or present it fully, or with much emphasis, and certainly not in a way which implies WP itself supports those views. In the case of Key's daughter, her quote being at the end of the article makes it seems that's our "grand finale", our parting shot, and makes it seem like WP editors feel her views are at least as important as the AIB's. Similarly for the "alternative theories", and the "American lawyer". Just because we have the source doesn't mean we can trump NPOV/UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that placing an identical piece of text in varying positions in an article may have a different emphasis, so what you are saying is that if her quote (hypothetically) was placed in the middle of the article that would be acceptable? If it appears at the end of the article, unintentionally by logical section flow, then it is not acceptable? The memorial is actually the last section but I understand what you mean. This would make it very difficult for editors to add otherwise acceptable cited text if they have to put it out of position. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mention the position at the end as one aspect, but logically it does belong where it is. I would have no problem with the alternative views if they were condensed to a sentence or two, in our own words. Something like, "Some authors have criticized the AIB's report and proposed alternative causes for the accident, including a hypothetical discrepancy between the FDR and the pilot's panel instruments.[1] Julie Key, Captain Key's daughter, has made public statements about the accident, denouncing what she perceives as the vilification of her father, arguing that the heart attack was only speculation and that there were mechanical problems with the plane which could have caused the accident.[2]" Again, I don't want to censor these reliable sources, but we need to cut their statements to bare minimums, per NPOV/UNDUE. If readers are interested in more, they can always click on the refs and dig in, but we need to present an overall picture balanced by the preponderance of the views (i.e. AIB focused), without a tabloidish emphasis on the marginal views. Crum375 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Have now removed the 'alternative theories' section. There should now be no minority views in the article. It was evident that if even one sentence from it was left it would still be considered NNPOV and undue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's going too far in the other direction. If all you had was an article in a local newspaper (say) with some reporter's personal hypothesis of the crash, I'd agree with removing it entirely. But in this case, a book published about the subject, or the captain's daughter speaking out, both merit a minor mention, in my view. NPOV doesn't mean we should censor (or distort) the minority views, only that we give them minor mention. So I would consider the verbiage I suggested above, or equivalent, to cover both author and daughter. This could be an extra sentence or two where you currently mention dissent or debate. The best way to properly present and balance such dissent is to rely on high quality secondary sources to do the appropriate weighting for us. This could be, for example, a respected aviation safety journal reviewing the case long after the dust has settled. Crum375 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section: The final part of the lead is not neutral, IMO. It puts too much emphasis on the captain's incapacitation, and too little (none) on the rookie copilot who was tasked with backing him up, and the labor strife which led to that unfortunate tasking.
  • I think I edited that last night and forgot to reply, can you have another look please. As a note the emphasis on the captain, which hopefully has gone, may have been from the very real perception in England that this accident was caused solely by a 'heart attack', that is mentioned in the article. I can't remember exactly what I thought about it at the time (as a 10 year old 'plane spotter') but I think that it was probably the same. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The addition of the copilot's role is good. But there are still issues in the lead. First, there are sweeping statements there that lack inline sources, for example, "The process and findings of the inquiry were considered highly controversial among British pilots and the public – extremely poor industrial relations at British European Airways (BEA) were suggested as the real underlying cause of the accident, and it was felt that the flight crew, headed by an experienced senior captain, was wrongly assigned the role of scapegoat." This is unsourced, and would require good secondary sources to tell us what the "British public" thought. Also, the phrase "X was considered highly controversial" is kind of meaningless: it doesn't tell us whether the public supported X or not, and if it was divided about it, it doesn't tell us who and how many were on each side of the fence. In any case, it would need careful secondary sourcing. Another problem I see is in the summary of the accident's probable cause(s): "the crash resulted from a deep stall caused by the pilots' error in configuring the aircraft and failure to maintain the correct airspeed." As far as I can see reading the AIB report (p. 54), the crash was primarily caused by the pilot in command's failure to maintain airspeed, his premature retraction of the aircraft's high-lift devices which brought the aircraft into a stall regime, the crew's failure to diagnose and correct the problem, and the crew's disabling of the stall recovery system. If you wanted to condense this even further, you could say it was caused by "the pilot in command's failure to maintain the correct airspeed, his misconfiguring the aircraft which brought it into the stall regime, and the crew's failure to diagnose and correct the problem." The difference from the current version is that it more closely follows the source, and it alludes to the monitoring roles expected from the crew. I see other issues there, but this will do for now. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a good look at the lead again and altered it slightly so far. Para 1 is a factual summary of the flight details and the crash timing that are well cited in the article. I see nothing amiss with it apart from the recent addition of turbojet by another editor. This term is not used elsewhere in the article, it may be over precise for a lead summary but it is factually correct, if not unusual, wording (most people including myself would just call it a 'jet airliner' or just 'airliner' as most of them are jets now). In fact it is more precise than the description of a Trident lower down where it is termed simply an airliner, I wouldn't have added it but it's just one word, I am tempted to remove it. In Para 2 I have attributed the errors to the captain now (instead of the whole crew as it implied) (follows AIB) and reversed the summarised first two main causes listed to align closer to the order of the AIB findings. Para 3 I will come to in a minute. Para 4, I have attempted to indicate that there were more recommendations (The Capt Collins 'possible distraction' subject and need for CVRs are covered in the text and have both been summarised). Para 3, this can be improved. I have re-read my sources on this section and at the risk of expanding the public inquiry section (to more closely agree with the lead which is not that far off a reasonable summary of the apparent controversy surrounding the case) it can be fixed without too much difficulty. Another paragraph summarising the 'alternate theories' section was removed recently by another editor. The section exists so it should be mentioned, perhaps though that editor felt that it was an undue weight problem so I did not revert the removal (the edit summary was very short and I didn't ask him about it). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead needs more work, IMO. There is still no mention of the failure of the crew in its monitoring role, which is the AIB's way of indicating they would have expected the more experienced P3 to notice the misconfiguration and impending stall, and to yell out "speed", or "droops". As I noted above, there are still no sources cited for the sweeping statements about the public reaction, and they are vague in any case. I would also include inline citations for some of the other statements, such as the AIB and ASN reports for the basic facts. Crum375 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added the third listed main cause (from a possible total of five), now worried that this sentence is too long, it may just need a punctuation adjustment. I have noted above that I will look at Para 3 (later today hopefully) which we both note could be improved. As far as I am aware there is no requirement for cites in the lead (it is a growing trend that I agree with and both my previous successful FAC nominations do not use them) as long as the facts are clearly cited elsewhere in the article, the review of Para 3 will include this check, information in the other paragraphs is clearly cited in the main text to my knowledge. Perhaps there is a shortcut to this 'no cites in the lead' guideline, I need to bookmark it as I can never find it. I see that lead sections cause an enormous amount of trouble at FAC (and at other times in an article's life), there can be widely differing views of what exactly should be contained in it, even after successful FAC they get continually 'adjusted', I'll do my best anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leads are not exempt from WP:V (which is policy), which applies to all material anywhere in article space: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." WP:LEAD, which is a style guideline, says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." In this particular case, I am highlighting specific issues in the lead which I believe should be cited inline, since they are complex and/or controversial. My own practice is to add inline cites, including in the lead, because doing that is far easier than arguing with people who ask for them. Also, it makes life easier on the readers who only want to read the lead and jump right into the sources. Crum375 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, I have just found that guideline as well, the direct shortcut is WP:LEADCITE. It would be a matter then of determining what is likely to be contentious and moving some existing 'refname' cites up to it. I expect that would just be para 3 which I still have to adjust. Afraid that I have to go out tonight so will not be able to progress this immediately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the way we define "contentious" on WP is to include any material that is being specifically challenged by an editor, in addition to external disputes outside of WP. Adding an inline citation to the main and most reliable sources (AIB and ASN) is easy, and can be placed at the end of the relevant paragraphs, so clutter is not an issue. Also, the lead paragraph I referred to about public opinion is not only unsourced, but it's unclear to me, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the contested wording from the lead, there was no apparent way that I could reword it to convey the same meaning without appearing non-neutral. From that wording has been left The process and findings of the inquiry were considered highly controversial among British pilots and the public. which I believe is factual, not contentious and well cited. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the memorial erection is not lead-worthy, since many (if not most) accidents result in memorials, and the lead should include the most note-worthy aspects only. Regarding the current phrase, "The process and findings of the inquiry were considered highly controversial among British pilots and the public", I think it is still problematic grammatically, and still not sourced. It would be best to find a high quality secondary source, preferable with hindsight (e.g. published at some anniversary of the crash) which does this distillation for us (which we can then summarize). Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pressure relief valve: The article says: "The reduction in engine power might also have activated the warning light indicating low air pressure in the stall recovery system; however, a three-way air pressure valve was later found to have been one-sixth of a turn out of position, and the pin which locked it into position was missing.[37]"
    • The word "however" violates WTW and is also illogical
    • The word "might" is too weak, since there is little doubt the light was on, so perhaps "likely" is better
    • The word "pin" implies a cotter pin (or equivalent), while the AIB refers to a "wire", implying a safety wire.
  • "A three-way pneumatic valve which formed an important part of the stall recovery system was reported to have been poorly maintained; it was one-sixth of a turn out of position (in effect, exactly midway between two set positions) and was lacking the locking pin which fixed it into a set position.[37]"
    • "Poorly maintained": there was a missing safety wire and the valve was 1/6 open: do we have a source calling that "poorly maintained"?
    • I can't find the "exactly midway" wording in the AIB reference.
    • The source cited (AIB) does not mention the "between two set positions" which is also mentioned in the article
    • We should probably mention that, warning light notwithstanding, the valve was functionally OK according to the AIB's report, since the stick pusher did operate properly.
  • "there were no other probable reasons why the take-off would have been delayed." Is that well sourced? I could think of many reasons, some non-mechanical. E.g. they couldn't locate some navigation chart, or had some question about the fuel quantity on board, etc. I am not discounting the possibility of the delay being related to the warning light activation, but there is no evidence for it, and the AIB makes no reference to it in its report.
  • Related to the valve, the article says "offering Key solid grounds for mistrusting its warnings". I don't see a low pressure warning light, activated only on power reduction, offering "solid grounds" to ignore the "entire system" (the warning part of which, i.e. stick shaker, is electric, not pneumatic), nor do I see the AIB support that point (though I might have missed it. The AIB point (IIRC) is that the "pressure low" light was adjacent to the "droops out of position" light on the annunciator console, and Key could have mistakenly assumed there was a droops problem.
  • I have cut that, it could have been moved to 'alternate theories' as it was cited from Bartelski but there is an apparent 'weight' problem already with that section. I don't know if it would help but can you get this book from a library? I am really not seeming to explain very well its content. We both seem to have labelled him as 'fringe theorist' and that may not quite be right. Some of it is his conjecture (and he admits this) but other parts of it are clearly reporting facts, mainly relating to the conduct of the inquiry, that are hard to find elsewhere. There is another direct quote in there from Flight relating to what the pilot community thought of the inquiry that I have not typed out here (it may be possible to find that directly through the Flightglobal.com archive, not 'sticking up for him' or taking sides but he does seem to be taking the trouble to attribute his own sources and that is being discounted.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept what you quote from the source, but I think the AIB's final report is very professional and comprehensive and represents by far the majority's view (as is typical). I am not against adding bits of "color" from other reliable sources, or top-level views (e.g. public perception), but when it comes to technical things that don't make sense, we instantly get to WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE territory. In any case, I have struck out the point. Crum375 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]



  • "Stall warning":
    • I think this event sequence is critical, since this is where the accident occurred, but it is very busy and hard to read. At a minimum, I would drop the GMT times, and stay with "seconds past brake release" for the individual events (i.e. "At 64 seconds X happened, at 76 seconds Y happened.")
  • It is given in the AIB report (Appendix p.79) in both formats and appears to have been added to the article in September 2008. For style consistency at FAC if there is one time formatted like this then the others have to be as well (depending on who the reviewer is!). It was a three minute flight so the timescale is short, I have no strong view either way on it, if we go for one format someone will say why aren't you using the other, if we use a mixture of formats the consistency 'police' will spot it. I look at it as a 'Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea' situation. It is not a particularly easy edit to remove one or the other either (although it may look that way) because in places it ties in with the prose. As it is I don't think it is harming the article but would welcome other editors views on it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "police" issue here. You have a dense/fast sequence of events, all within seconds, where the core of this article is focused. There are many places in the AIB report where they use the term "second X" to refer to a particular event. There is no problem at all wiki-wise for us to mention only the key events (e.g. brake release and crash) as full GMT times, and all the rest as "second X" and "second Y". (Another option is "At X seconds, ...") The second units are thankfully the same for everyone, so there is no need for anything else. As for the altitudes and airspeeds, unfortunately there we'll probably have to bow to WP conventions. We need to use the normal international aviation units (knots and feet) as primary ones, with the metric equivalent in parens. The point here is to try to make this critical section as readable as possible for non experts, and non aviation buffs, so anything we can simplify is a big bonus. Crum375 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]



    • "Key held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure and levelled the wings, his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further" - this incorrectly implies that both the nose up and the wings leveling induced the stall, while it's just the former. The wings leveling would actually reduce the stall tendency (though insufficiently to prevent it in this case).
  • It's still there: Key levelled the wings but held the aircraft's nose up ... I expect the actions were simultaneous or could not exactly be determined but for clarity it is better in this order. My own teaching of stall recovery (from a national syllabus) is to pitch down then level the wings so I didn't question it when it was given in that order in the source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's still a bit misleading: "Key levelled the wings but held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure, his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." This implies that Key's faulty "action" included both the leveling as well as the nose raising, when in reality only the latter was wrong ("pro-stall"), while the former was correct ("anti-stall"). I have removed the strikethough so we don't miss this point. Crum375 (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, although it's not quite what the source says now (current cite 39). Stewart doesn't use angle of attack on that page (he can't wikilink like we can) but ... in the interest of clarity I think it should rest at your last version because it does explain simply what exactly was happening at the time without altering the facts. Just to note that angle of attack is wikilinked earlier (but is probably far enough away to be linked again as you did), the wikilinked Michael Heseltine has also just been added by someone else who may not appreciate that it is linked in the previous section. I am not an WP:OVERLINK guideline expert but we have to take a little more care at this level as it will get spotted. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an OVERLINK expert either, but my own preference is to include it for technical words we feel average readers may not understand, normally no more than once per section, and once per article wherever possible or reasonable. In this case, we'd have to decide whether readers who jump forward to this section may spot the earlier link or not. I would leave it this way for now, and let others decide. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at OVERLINK just now it seems to be saying 'just don't use too many blue links together in a string else the reader will miss the important ones' not to limit how many times it is used in an article so we can crack on. I think the Manual of Style has been revised/tidied up recently and I struggle to keep up with it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the MOS issues to others. My main focus here is the big picture (is the reader getting the overall correct impression, based on a neutral presentation of the reliable sources?) and the technical details. At the moment, in my view, both have a way to go, though I think (hope) we are converging. Crum375 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • "At 16:10:55 (145 seconds) and 1,000 feet (300 m), the Trident was descending at 4,500 feet per minute (23 m/s) at a flight angle of 60°.[41]" - The AIB report seems to contradict this.AIB report (Fig. 1) According to my reading of the pitch angle plot (which matches the table values in Fig. 3), it never went over 35° (at second 136), and at second 145 it was actually very near zero. Does your source explain this discrepancy?
  • I have clarified it, someone in the past added 'flight angle' (not an aviation term), Stewart says 'angle' and I believe he is referring to the side profile of the aircraft's path to the ground, I can see that he has taken that from the Flight Data Recorder graph. Just before that he notes a pitch angle of 31° which is correct.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know where the (now) "60° flight path to the ground" comes from? I don't see it in the AIB report. Does your source explain how he derives it? Can you quote exactly what he says about it? Crum375 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbatim from Stewart, p. 10 (should be cited?):At 1,000 ft the aircraft broke cloud descending at a 60° angle at 4,500 ft/min. He does not explain how he derives it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not stated in the AIB text, and AFAICT it seems to contradict the AIB maps and plots, so I would consider it conflicting with it, unless there is some way to verify how it was derived. When I calculate the flight's final descent angle (which I assume is what is meant by this angle), around second 145, I get closer to 20°, and as I noted above its angle of incidence appears to be about 0° at that time. I could be wrong, of course, in which case perhaps you can help me find my mistake. Crum375 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the original plots in the appendix like yourself, there is an extrapolated line (the 1004.5 millibar one) for altitude, at the 1,000 ft given by Stewart the line is describing a 60° approximate angle when taking a line to the vertical scale on the left. The discrepancy, if there is one, is that at second 145 the extrapolated line actually crosses the 700 ft mark, the article says 1000 ft and second 145. To correct this (which would be original research if I did it) may be bordering on the excessive detail that you mentioned elsewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AIB figure tells us the broken lines are extrapolated, and presumably that's the best data available. As far as the altitude plots, there are both Qfe and Qnh plotted, but only Qfe (height above field elevation) is extrapolated. The horizontal scale is time and the vertical (for this curve) is altitude, so taking the geometrical angle of the curve directly is apples-and-oranges meaningless (unless you are guaranteed constant speed, and even then you'd need a correction factor for the angle). If this is what your source did, it could explain his result perhaps, but would reflect poorly on either him or me (if I am wrong), and in any case would count as WP:REDFLAG. What I did is to take his value for the vertical speed at second 145 (my own comes out a bit higher, but it's increasing rapidly at that point so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt), and the approximate ground speed at that point, which can be obtained from the position plot. If both are in the same units, then they form a triangle which provides the descent angle. This is something any reader with high school geometry should be able to understand and do, so it is "verifiable", but I still wouldn't use it in the article. I am only mentioning it to explain why I believe his descent angle is way off, by a factor of three, which is why I consider it an exceptional claim, conflicting with the more reliable and mainstream source, and requiring "exceptional" sources to resolve per REDFLAG, if we want to include it. Crum375 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*So the easy answer is just to remove the '60°' I would think. I can now see that if the time axis is shortened then the apparent descent rate will steepen, it is a depiction of the flight path but not to scale. I will do that.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. If this is how he got the number, he was dividing apples by oranges. It's better now without the (apparently) incorrect angle, but as you say the altitude is still wrong. I am getting about 750 feet at second 145 using the AIB's extrapolated plot. The AIB is mum after second 134 (1,200 ft "estimated" according to them at that point), while I am getting about 1,200 ft on the plot at second 134. If I were writing this article, I'd just stick to the pros (i.e. AIB's Fig. 3 and main text). You can keep the 1000 if you insist (as a very poor approximation), or remove it. I don't think we can put in our own WP:OR values from the plot, but we may remove a source we feel is shaky. Crum375 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Another example of apparent POV: "The propensity to deep stalling resulted in the crash of Trident 1C, G-ARPY, on 3 June 1966 near Felthorpe in Norfolk during a test flight, with the loss of all four pilots on board. In this accident, the crew had deliberately switched off the stick shaker and stick pusher to perform their tests." This is sourced to ASN, which does not say anything about a "propensity to deep stalling". The AIB report specifically says the Trident 1C aircraft was safe, and the cited accident involved intentionally disabling the very systems which were supposed to protect the aircraft from stalling, so a crash would seem logical, esp. if stall recovery was delayed, as was apparently the case. It is important to keep this article neutral, and ensure that derogatory statements be carefully sourced and properly balanced with the entire range of views.
  • Reworded, also highlighted the fact that the protection system was turned off by the crew. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced the word "resulted" with "highlighted", as suggestion, which I hope is OK. For NPOV, I would also like to see mention of the fact that (per ASN) the crew delayed corrective inputs at the incipient stall point, which led to the crash. The same delayed corrective action was obviously relevant in the G-ARPI accident too. Crum375 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I might add more later. Crum375 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have to call it a day again (still aware that I need to look at some earlier comments and the new ones). I believe that my recent edits at your suggestion have improved the article further. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see improvement. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • This is not a tech issue, but if this were my FA, I'd make an effort to draft some local Wikipedian with a camera to take pictures of the two memorials mentioned in the article. At least one would be nice to include.
  • Thanks, I have often considered that as I am not very far from the crash site, in fact I passed it last week and was stuck in a traffic jam under the flightpath of jets departing on the exact same route that this aircraft was using and the weather was the same, slightly eerie I have to say. Well it is a fact that the memorials exist, there is actually another one for the Belgian victims in Brussels but the web source that I found for it could not be used (SPS I think). There is a general thrust to keep memorial aspects down in the aviation project, using WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sometimes all the passengers have been listed by name which is over the top, I think it has been decided only to include passengers who have their own wiki articles (notability). The memorial section in this article is deliberately short, a recent BBC news article stated that the nurse who was first on the scene still leads prayers at annual remembrance services but I decided not to include that detail bearing in mind the feeling against memorial sections, I may be reading that feeling the wrong way. I think it is a good idea to include a photo of the main memorial and will pop up there some time, if only to view the location for myself (I've never been). The only other minor problem is that only one photo could go in the section and it would probably hang into the next section, a minor display/style problem. Any other usable photos could go in the Commons category of course. There remains the problem of trying to find a suitable (probably non-free fair use) image of the crash scene for the infobox which has been discussed at length elsewhere (my talk page and the article talk page I think). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no problem memorial-wise with adding a couple of memorial images. Many developed accident articles have them. Format-wise, it would be easy to add them (assuming there are two or more) in gallery-style to the bottom of the memorial section. Crum375 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that, just need some good images and it is a shame that I didn't have the time to take some photos while I was in the area last week. I was under the impression that galleries were discouraged, many members of the aviation project spend a lot of time removing them though I think you are saying to use a gallery style which is different. This method is being used to effect at Rolls-Royce Merlin#Applications (although I preferred the images when they were on the right!). Just need some photos if Jimbo can loan me the petrol money! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic T-tail deep stalls

[edit]

It seems to me that much of the "operational background" should be revised to focus not so much on the specific Trident type, but on the T-tail design as a whole (of which the Trident was one of the pioneers) which is prevalent even today. For example, this Air Safety Week article gives an overview, and explains how T-tail designs generically have a deep-stall potential, which holds even for gliders. It mentions G-ARPI, so it would not violate WP:SYN to discuss this generic issue as background. It is important to emphasize that T-tails have a propensity for deep stalls, which is countered (on jets) by stick shakers/pushers. If pilots ignore or override those safety systems in such aircraft, they are basically tempting fate. I think this is an important aspect of this accident and should be discussed in the article. Crum375 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mjroots

[edit]

Naples Incident - I think a ref needs to be added for the sentence The event became known as the "Naples Incident" or the "Foxtrot Hotel Incident" (after the registration of the aircraft concerned) at BEA. - Wrecks and relics only confirms the preservation of the forward fuselage of G-AVFH. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At which point is the some kind of !vote held on whether or not the article meets the criteria? It must be pretty close by now. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_European_Airways_Flight_548/archive2&oldid=379905457"