Talk:British Airways Flight 5390/Archive 1

Archive 1

Difficulty

Quote: "both flight crew and ground personnel had difficulty carrying out the British Airways Emergency Procedure Information Centre plan." Is there any reference or other evidence for this? treesmill 08:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe the second officer was a three year-old. Maybe it would be better to delete his age completely until someone can say for sure what it was at the time of the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.82.66.16 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The picture

I was only six at the time, but I can vividly remember seeing newspaper front pages with a picture of the captain hanging out of the window the following day, presumably taken from a nearby aircraft at some point. Google throws up nothing, however — am I imagining things, or were there such front pages? Angmering 17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I also remember something similar but I think that what you are thinking of was an artist's impression, i.e., a drawing of the scene, rather than a photo. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone got any pictures of the incident with the aircraft in the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.9 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

"He was relieved by the remaining two flight attendants"

Could anyone offer insight into how they relieved him? Because right now it seems a little... well, you know... --lazyguy 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• The airreg|G|BJRT|disaster link goes nowhere, says "not found". --194.251.240.114 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed to take the reader to the registration page. Risker 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Info for citation.

Heres the information regarding Captain Lancaster working for EasyJet but I dont know how to cite it.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/This-is-your-captain-screaming/2005/02/04/1107476802601.html (Scroll down towards the end).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.238.225 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, that was useful. I've added it to the article. --John 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Atchison Retired?

There's a rumour about Atchison, the first officer involved in BA5390, finished his final flight from Alicante to Manchester yesterday (June 29 2015). Anybody got sources to verify it?

Redirects needed for this article

• G-BJRT
• BA5390
• BAW5390
• Speedbird 5390

70.55.86.54 (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

AirCrash Investigation

There is an episode dedicated to this incident, I believe.. 82.3.253.172 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Steve (UK8)

The episode is entitled 'Blow Out' - it's available on YouTube here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.9 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wind speed

The article currently says that the relative wind speed outside the plane at the time of decompression was 500 mph. That figure isn't mentioned in any of the references or external links for the article. I just watched an episode of Air Crash Investigations regarding this incident, and the figures given in the show are much lower. Between 5 and 9 minutes into the show, the narrator makes the following three statements regarding wind speed:

"Alastair, the co-pilot, is suddenly fighting for control in a 350-mile-an-hour wind."

"Outside, a 390-mile-an-hour blast of wind at minus 17 degrees centigrade smashes into Tim Lancaster's body."

"They've dived to 11,000 feet in just 2-1/2 minutes, but as they level out and slow down to 170 miles per hour, the captains body is no longer pinned to the roof and slides round to the side of the plane"

Could someone please find an online reference for this wind speed information or replace the figure given with a less specific descriptor, e.g. "extreme wind"? Thanks. Metrowestjp (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Air traffic control approval for landing

The article says that they waited patiently for landing clearance, which was difficult due to cabin noise. That sounds most unlikely -- unless the weather was very bad they would have come straight in and let everyone else get out of their way. Aviate, navigate, communicate. Tuntable (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem was one of the crew being physically unable to hear the radio communications from the ground due to the wind noise in the cockpit, so there was a period where they couldn't actually hear the ATC's radio messages giving clearance to land and other instructions/advisories. That is what caused some delay in the aircraft landing, for as you suggest, clearance was given by the ATC almost immediately it was requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.158 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content

@EEng: Your recent edits are almost entirely based on WP:JDLI logic. Please don't just remove content that you don't like – your personal opinion is not enough of a basis to go through an article and delete chunks of text and entire sections without at least discussing it first. I was particularly concerned about the In popular culture section being obliterated without prior warning. I've been working on the In popular culture section in many of aviation disaster articles for some time now, tying them in with the Mayday episodes. The purpose is to direct readers to other Wikipedia articles in case they are inspired to seek out alternative sources of interest. Who are we to say whether or not they may be inclined to seek out "routine true-life-drama coverage", we should surely give them the option as it ties in perfectly with the subject at hand. We already have "sources explaining their significance" – they are the very articles that we are linking to! In denying the reader the option to find the TV shows / dramas / books / poems, etc. would be very narrow-minded indeed! What if they were to read the article and think: "Oh, I've heard about that somewhere before. I'm sure there was a thing on TV I saw a few years ago. I wonder..." then they notice the In popular culture section and hey presto. We have surely done them a service? Without this link, they are left wondering, maybe a little baffled, forced to run time-consuming Google searches, when all we needed to do was present them with a neat little list.

Many articles on historical news events have an In popular culture section, it has become an established staple section in these articles. Take a look at Swissair Flight 111 if you want to see a comprehensive list and please don't tell me that was a waste of time! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one: Japan Airlines Flight 123. There are endless examples – surely you're not going to go through and delete them all!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Added back name of hospital & some other info in Aftermath section →

• Name of hospital is an additional fact that is intended to add interest for the reader. If we pull out all the extraneous facts (within reason) we end up with a very dull uninformative article.
• Fail to see how his retirement from BA and further flying career is irrelevant info. People might be interested to know what happened to Lancaster after the event, and this is the place to tell them in the absence of a specific BLP about the man.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits are almost entirely based on WP:JDLI logic ... said the editor with two months' experience and 1400 edits.

• See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_63#popular-culture-RfC, wherein it was held: The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance. You're right that Many articles on historical news events have an In popular culture section but one of the things you'll learn when you've been here longer is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
• This isn't an article on Lancaster and he's not apparently notable in his own right. That he returned to work relatively quickly tells the reader a lot; that he retired 15 years later but actually didn't really retire but only technically retired because his current employer had a mandatory retirement age, which was the retirement age at the time but (maybe) isn't the retirement age anymore, but anyway he went to work for another airline and kept flying for a few more years tells the reader nothing about the subject of this article, which is this accident on this day and the people involved. Why aren't we giving the subsequent life histories of everyone else named?
• Articles certainly don't say things like Inexplicably, Lancaster was found to be alive.
• The reader will assume without being told that Lancaster was not expected to leave the plane under his own power and that he went to a hospital (though if not, that would be worth mentioning). Unless there's something explaining why this particular hospital was noteworthy in context – it has special facilities for care of these particular injuries, pehaps – it's just the local general hospital to which he was naturally taken. The reader learns nothing from having this factoid intruded into his consciousness, much less from a link to this no doubt worthy but unremarkable facility.
• And on it goes. Ogden was entering the cockpit to offer refreshments to the flight crew – so what?

EEng 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I did look at Swissair Flight 111, and indeed the trivia is uncited and should go. In fact the whole article could use a severe copyedit for overdetail and just plain rotten writing e.g. The fuel-laden plane was above maximum landing weight ... the doomed plane flew into the ocean ... the doomed flight would not have reached the Halifax airport ... smoke pouring into the flight deck ... unlawful power routing. Yecch! The collapsible (!) List of vessels involved in the searching and rescue actions could be Exhibit A in an essay on fancruft. EEng 20:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I did so relish that whimsical detail about "Ogden offering refreshments to the flight crew". It reminded me of the charming Air Dorises at Hale and Pace's "Yorkshire Airlines". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Originally it said he was bringing them tea, which is oh so English. EEng 21:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm gasping for a cuppa, myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Morning, nice cup of tea and a bit more awake now. Thanks to EEng for all your remarkably useful insight and intellectual wit. I read your essays on astonishment and puzzlement, and whilst very entertaining and captivating, it all seems extremely pedantic to me. You shouldn't get so worked up about the whys and wherefores of the letter of the law, most readers wouldn't really be that bothered if there's a bit of extraneous detail or a teeny tiny additional fact that they don't really need. Without being party to all the editorial mechanics behind the scenes they would be completely oblivious to all that. And you have a very strange way of welcoming newcomers into the fold, your wit and sarcasm expertly belie your nationality. You could almost be taken for one of our own. I have certainly wasted enough of my time on here so I think I'll go elsewhere today and do something more productive. Like, er, live my real life, hey there's an idea! Happy... whatever it is you're actually trying to do. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this deletion. Notwithstanding Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_63#popular-culture-RfC, I think those items are useful for the reader who's interested and who wants to see the incident portrayed in a different format. These episodes are frequently used by aviation safety specialists who want to reach a lay audience. There's hardly a huge surfeit of "popular culture" links to wade through here. What there is, is professionally made and perfectly relevant. So I think secondary sources should be sought to support their inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Martin. I'm still mulling this one over but have been too busy with other things to do anything about it. At some point I will pursue the question of "In popular culture" sections in this type of article, as I strongly disagree that a secondary source is required to verify the notability/relevance of a pop.culture item. I would have thought they are self-referencing by the very fact that they exist at all. What EEng is looking for presumably is an independent source that says that the pop.culture item is related to the article in question, e.g. a newspaper article that says "this episode of Mayday is based on the events of such and such an accident", but to me that just seems crazy and self-defeating. Surely common sense would dictate that the In.pop.culture section is a "law unto itself" in terms of sourcing and is not intended to be a solid foundation for the subject of the main article, but an illustrative collection of further reading/viewing for the sake of natural human interest. I would love to see the resistance to his trying to delete the In.pop.culture section from the Mother of all Aviation Disasters! I'm thinking of bringing this up as a separate issue through the more appropriate RfC route, but like I said I've been a bit busy with other stuff, and life just keeps getting in the way of all this Wiki nonsense, unless you fancied starting it off on my behalf (cheeky me)...? Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.Note that some of these articles actually use TV documentaries as primary sources for information within the main body of the article, now THAT might be a cause for concern! But then again, the very fact that we would question the reliability of a TV documentary as a primary source, says to me that a TV doc. is less respectable than an online article/report as a source of real information. Or maybe that's the whole point. This could turn out to be a lovely big can of worms. (You see I've picked up your annoying habit of injecting humour by creating random wikilinks! But considering that we have an entire encyclopedia at our disposal, then why the hell not!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• What EEng is looking for presumably is an independent source that says that the pop.culture item is related to the article in question – You apparently didn't read the RfC I linked. What's needed is a source establishing the significance of the depiction to an understanding of the subject. TV documentaries (if they're reliable – which often they're not when set against print sources) are just sources like any other, and just because they're video instead of print doesn't make them "pop culture" and merit they're being highlighted in a special section of the article proper.
• I strongly disagree that a secondary source is required to verify the notability/relevance of a pop.culture item – Oh, so maybe you did read the RfC. You can strongly disagree all you want, but in the meantime you need to follow community consensus.

A cultural reference is significant if it changed the way the public sees the subject or stimulated popular outrage and reform, or if the cultural reference is notable in its own right and uses the subject as an important element – stuff like that, not just that someone made a TV show. The secondary (or ideally, tertiary) sources are what would establish these requisites. EEng 18:21, 29 Aprilbout 2018 (UTC)

That seems a rather strict definition of significance. But if "changing the way the public sees the subject" can mean actually showing them that it happened at all, then these surely pass? There really are not that many of these Mayday-type documentaries around and I would guess there are many tens of thousands of people who have only learned about accidents like this one from watching one of those. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I said "stuff like that" -- those were examples. The gating requirement is that we need a secondary/tertiary source establishing significance of some kind to an understanding of the subject; after that we can talk about how "much" significance (whatever that means) is required. EEng 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I did skim through the RfC but TBH I found it all a bit laborious and chose not to memorise the precise details although I did get the jist, but still don't happen to agree with it. I will endeavour to read it properly at some point because it's always fascinating to see how other people's minds work. If consensus was reached on this matter back in Oct 2015, then why are there still thousands of articles with In pop.culture sections? How come the consensus didn't have the desired result of wiping out this cancer from the entirety of Wikipedia? Maybe it's because most other people don't really give a stuff about it and it's actually fine the way it is anyway. You might still actually find quite a lot of opposition out there to the obliteration of In pop.culture sections, all of a sudden, out of the blue, for no apparent reason. And I'd have thought that just because a consensus has been reached, that doesn't mean that a discussion can't be re-ignited if there's enough interest, and a new (alternative) consensus agreed as a result. But any road up, surely the whole point of these TV docs, etc. is that we leave it to the reader/viewer to make up their own mind whether the depiction has any significance to their understanding of the subject, and by excluding the links we are denying them the chance to make that decision for themselves? As for the term "popular culture", this has just become the standard term of reference, for want of a section heading; we could just as easily call it "Depictions in other media". This would cover TV, radio, books, poetry anthologies, training courses, music lyrics, board games, cuddly toys, and so on. Martin, I'm one of those many tens of thousands of people who have only learned about accidents like this one from watching a Mayday show, or Aircrash Investigation as it is known in England. I was addicted to the show a couple of years ago and when I started wiki-editing I thought I would look it up and that's what led me into the current arena. And hey, tomorrow I become an Apprentice Editor (3 months of service) so maybe my opinion will count for a little bit more then!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just steer clear of EEng and you should be fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

TLDR, except I did notice How come the consensus didn't have the desired result of wiping out this cancer from the entirety of Wikipedia? Answer: Because it's no one's job to rush out and bring articles into conformance; I've previously pointed you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your opinion will start counting more when it reflects an understanding of guidelines and policies, and drops WP:IDHT. EEng 22:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Rodney, as EEng might possibly remember, or even admit to remembering, is that the amount of rules, guidelines, policies and jargon here is quite overwhelming, for any relative newcomer. In my experience a "good attitude" and a willingness to work collaboratively is worth about 10 times as much as knowledge of all the rules and policies. Most people pick them up quite quickly as they go along (or, as in my case, start forgetting them after 11 years of getting them wrong). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Martin's right. I should have said "an understanding of guidelines and policies, or in lieu of that, a willingness to listen to those trying to school you in them". EEng 02:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're trying to school me are you, I thought you were just trying to patronise me! I don't need schooling thanks, I'm pretty good at picking things up as I go along. Since joining the wiki crowd, I've created and renamed articles, advised people in the Teahouse, and been instrumental in making changes to templates, amongst other things. And you can underline things as much as you like, I still don't have to agree with you. Take it easy, life doesn't have to be all that serious all of the time. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to unline that. Although you can't beat a bit of schooling you know... [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Direct Vision window

Yes, the AAIB report does use the term "Direct Vision window", but to the general reader this is quite an arcane and obscure term. User:Rodney Baggins is quite right when he says "DVs are side windows that can be opened and removed during emergency ops while airborne to provide forward vision when main windscreens are obscured (e.g.frosting/shattering)" But while we have an encyclopedia that redirects aircraft windscreen to the current windshield article, it's unlikely we're going to get any definition of DV windows in an article soon. I'm finding it difficulty to find a good online source that's not a forum page. As an example, it's mentioned in this emergecy procedures card for an EMB-145. I'd suggest that something similar to Rodney's explanation is added as a note. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This is where I found it: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22886/whats-the-technical-name-of-the-side-window-on-boeing-and-on-embraer Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one too. While we both (and even EEng too) know that's probably all quite accurate, it's the sort of forum/ message board site that Wikipedia loves to hate. We'll probably have to keep searching for something better. In my opinion an explanatory note could still go in while we search. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Good plan. Sure there must be a Boeing aircraft spec. sheet or something somewhere. You search, I need some sleep. Happy to add a note along those lines tomorrow... Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(Ah yes, that's the other bad thing about Wikipedia). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Morning peops, well it looks like our beloved has scuppered that one then! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "he sees you when you're sleeping", allegedly. One could see it as technical jargon, which is best avoided. A note would be fully justified if we kept it. I still think the fact that the crew could see Lancaster, and his worsening condition, is relevant and appropriate. It could just say "through a side window". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: "By this time Lancaster had shifted several inches further outside. The other crew members, looking through a side window, could see that his head was repeatedly striking the side of the fuselage with great force, and that his eyes were open but not blinking." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes that sounds fine to me. Why not try putting it in and see if it meets with everyone's approval. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What the article says now is By this time Lancaster had shifted several inches further outside, his head was repeatedly striking the side of the fuselage with great force, and his eyes were open but not blinking. Even if we had a source explaining that a DV window can be described as a "side window" there's still the question of how that detail adds to the reader's understanding of what was going on. If we're being told that his head was striking and eyes were open, clearly the crew knew that somehow, and it wasn't by clairvoyance or braille. Let's see... I'll bet they looked at him! Whether they saw him through the open frame from which the panel popped out, through the remaining front screen, or through a side window would be informative, except there's a more serious problem: there's nothing even explaining the position of Lancaster's body in the first, which is what readers really need to know. Given that, adding the which-window-they-saw-him-through detail really doesn't help, IMO.

As OR goes, equating DV=side is relatively minor (are they always on the "side"?), and I'm not going to fuss about. As far as I'm concerned the real point is that it's not a detail that tells the reader much anyway. EEng 16:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's vanishingly minor. There seems to be no ambiguity, unless you wanted to use "flight deck side window". The lack of any explanation of the position of Lancaster's body is a wholly separate problem, which we can also try to address. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

But I ask again: how does it help the reader to know which window the crew looked through? EEng 17:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the text "The left windscreen panel, on Lancaster's side of the flight deck ..." would give most readers a clue. My understanding is that he came out of the left main panel and so there were two left windows through which he could have been observed, the rear-most of which was the DV-window (see the fourth image down in this link with the blood spattering) - Rodney Baggins may wish to comment on that. But it wasn't really exactly which window that I thought informative, but rather the fact he could be seen at all, particularly his eyes were open but not blinking. To me this clarifies the postion of Lancaster's body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with what I said before, which is what's important is that they could see him -- and that's implicit in the text we already have. I was tempted, BTW, to propose that the "fourth image" you mention be proposed for inclusion in the article under fair use, but on reviewing the criteria I don't think it qualifies -- a real shame. EEng 21:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a real shame. But in the absence of that image, I think more could be added by way of description. Could that image be explicitly linked by way of a normal ref? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

[3] EEng 21:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that's something. Thanks for adding. I don't want to get hung up about DV windows, but I really think something about his position when outside the aircraft would be extremely useful. The official report says very little I think, and so, unless there were eye-witness accounts in the press, there may be little raw material apart than the DV window and the open eyes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's see what happens with [4]. EEng 21:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm more worried about that second image "As the reconstruction from the National Geographic Channel's documentary Air Crash Investigation (above) shows..." I'm not sure it was actually like that at all. How would anyone find out? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet another example of why Nat Geo, Discovery Channel, and Biography.com should be used with extreme caution at best. EEng 05:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

But now I'm worried about that fourth image itself: 1. It has no caption, and so could be any aircraft - why have all the windows been removed?. 2. It's not described in the text - so we don't know how it fits in the timeline; is that blood or red paint? 3. It has no obvious copyright status or author. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hover over the image and a description pops up. EEng 15:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yeah, shucks, I've never been any good with rotary craft. I guess that's just as good as a permanent caption? I guess copyright is assumed to be that of the publisher (if that matters at all). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Meanwhile, somebody might want to take a quick glance back at the sources used in a similar section at US Airways Flight 1549, which has received very close attention from some of the best Wiki editors, I hear? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried; you reverted. Since in the case of that subject there certainly are noteworthy inpopcult items (e.g. the Eastwood film) I didn't feel like getting into it, plus you'll recall the copyediting of the remainder of the article was quite a lot of work (and I again thank you for your contributions there BTW -- it's now quite a good article, methinks). EEng 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Again? I guess either we have a policy or we don't, or does it just depend on an appearance by Clint?? --yours ever, Dirty Policy Harry 123 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've been following this discussion. There's a good source here; it's from Disaster in the Air by Andrew Brookes, ISBN 0-7110-2037-X. I've found it a good source on other air safety stories. Where does the factoid about Lancaster's eyes even come from ? I would take that out. --John (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Factoid?? You'll need to have a word with K P R Smart. Thanks John, but what was that a source for again? .... So it actually took off two minutes early and had all six panels replaced?? That snippet photo may not be all it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) *lol*

So, having failed to find any open eyes or striking head in the AAIB report (page 4 has only "the two men ... could see his head and torso through the left Dierct Vision (DV) window...), I looked elsewhere and found this signed by ben.goldby@sundaymercury.net and credited to "BySunday Mercury 09:29, 17 APR 2011 UPDATED 15:43, 24 OCT 2012". Is this all invented? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a searchable pdf of the AAIB final report here, which might be easier to consult. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Good catches. "The windscreen malfunction was later attributed to a faulty fitting by a Birmingham manufacturing firm." isn't great, but there are discrepancies in the Brookes article as well. The Sunday Post is not what I would generally think of as a good source either. Yet these articles are rather dry if they only rely on the AAIB... --John (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the Sunday Mercury is a tabloid. So we shouldn't use it, even though that article is very enlightening (if it's true, of course - even mainstream newspapers tend to "enhance" reported speech). I'm not too bothered about the article being a bit dry, that's what one expects from an encyclopedia? Does Brookes say anything about Lancaster's position out of the aircraft, particularly where is head was? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Bolts

The difference "between 8/32" and 10/32"", i.e. between 1/4 inch and 5/16 inch, is indeed 1/16 inch, or 0.0625 ins. But to give this dimension in rounded decimals of an inch, and then convert it back to millimetres: 0.063 inches (1.6 mm), seems a bit odd? Why not just use 1/16 inch and convert to mm? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm out of coffee, so if lives are at stake get a second opinion, but what you're saying seems right. EEng 15:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Will try and amend if I get a window of opportunity. tee-hee. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You're cracked. EEng 15:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Also not sure why we have decimal inches for the lengths. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)