Talk:British Aerospace 146/Archive 2

Whisper jet?
Marketing is one thing, objective data another. As a passenger, I've not been impressed, but that is anecdotal too.137.205.100.185 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that the low noise statement refers to the amount of noise that the people on the ground perceive in the areas where the 146 was operating. The aircraft was intended to be operated in densely-populated areas such as those surrounding inner-city airports in London and other cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Royal Flight incident
and - Discussion time!

IMvHO, the addition of the incident involving the Royal Flight aircraft flown by Prince Charles at the time of the accident is notable enough for inclusion. Not only was it a very high profile pilot involved, but as I recall a tailwind landing. I also recall that Prince Charles "voluntarily" gave up flying Royal Flight aircraft as a direct result of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:AIRCRASH states incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if: [fatalities] or [hull loss] or [resulted in changes to procedures, regulations]. I don't know if the incident "resulted in changes to procedures, regulations".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC) (maybe the incident can be included in the Prince Charles article?)
 * Accepting that AIRCRASH is an essay, there was a material change following the accident in that HRH ceased to pilot Royal Flight aircraft, which could be said to be a change to procedures. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it's an essay, but still a good guideline for notability in aviation articles. A change of procedures in that context is an AD or similar, not a specific pilot decision to quit. The incident not about the BAe 146 but about Prince Charles, and is more relevant there.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think it is noteworthy to the 146, aircraft lands fast blows some tyres and lands up in the dirt, aircraft pulled out tyres changed and pride dusted down, not a big deal. Officially Prince Charles was a passenger and not part of the crew! MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The damage was reported as substantial and cost around £1 million to repair: a good deal more than just blowing out the tyres.


 * Many aircraft 'incidents' aren't the fault of the aircraft design but rather that of aircraft operation - so, basically, so what if this one was down to operator error?


 * Prince Charles was officially - as in recognised as such by the inquiry into the incident - the pilot who conducted the landing of the aircraft. The reason I put that particular incident in the article was that it was at least as significant as the other non-fatal incidents listed.


 * As for 'not a big deal' - well, let's see: the heir to the throne of one of the few remaining and most significant (constitutional) monarchies makes a big mess of a passenger aircraft by mucking up a landing he really didn't have any business conducting counts as 'newsworthy' if nothing else. (And writing as a mischievous Brit: monarchist or republican, you'd want to pay attention...)


 * If the reason given for undoing an edit is very obviously wrong, there is no need to take the matter to the talk page. Some challenges to an edit are just plain wrong.


 * However, since the idea seems to be that none of the previously listed non-fatal incidents are worthy of mention on Wikipedia, so be it. Prince Charles deciding to give up flying doesn't meet any of the criteria specified at WP:AIRCRASH. Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing the Main Photo of Article Avro RJ
As Mahan Air is the largest user of this aircraft, it is suggested that we change to first coming photo of this article to an Avro RJ belonging to Mahan Air, mentioning the largest operator. This photo is recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.44.50 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The operator livery is not relevant, what's important is the aircraft depiction. There is no obvious improvement in this regard between the two pictures.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course it is relevant! Just go take a look at other aircrafts’ pages herein Wikipedia! For instance go watch the page belonging to A330 and the caption under the main picture of article. Wikipedia is supposed to publish indiscriminately. So let’s not change the planned way and let’s not decay this worthy indiscrimination. Besides, if both pictures are the same in showing the aircraft features, it is reasonable to choose the picture of the largest operator of the mentioned aircraft as the main picture of the article. It just comes out from our wisdom and this will improve our Wikipedia’s validity. So let not destroy this credit, undertaking our personal thoughts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.115.131.224 (talk)


 * We are being indiscriminate by putting the best available photo of the aircraft in the infobox, one that shows the aircraft at the best angle and contrast. Choosing to only use a photo of the top operator is being discriminate. In the current photo, the aircraft is at a better angle, and the brighter blue sky contrasts better with the aircraft than blue-gray of the other one. As a rule, we've never chosen airliner article photos on the basis of the largest current operator. There have been editors in the past who've wanted to do it that way, so there are articles that still do it. But it's never been an accepted standard, and hopefully it won't ever be. BilCat (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your criticism on the blue sky is acceptable. But the proposed picture does not differ that much from the current photo in the angle. The proposed photo also shows features in details. refer to my previous comment hereon talk page, I declared reasons to change the photo paramtere by parameter. But if there's an order from authorities not to change the picture, I won't insist, so do what you do. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.44.50 (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Main pic change along pictures revamp
I updated the iconography of the article and I thought the midsize -200/RJ85 should be more representative than the longest -300/RJ100.

Feel free to revert if you think the previous was better.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Four engines
Early on, the decision to adopt four engines for a feeder airliner rather than two was viewed as atypical by some commentators. It was viewed as atypical because it was atypical. It is utterly unique. "Viewed by some" makes it sound like this is an opinion of dubious merit rather than a plain fact. Also I believe the point of the comment at the top of the page is requesting that someone explain why they chose four engines instead of two in the text of the article. I don't think they were asking out of idle curiosity, rather because like me they were annoyed by the sentence in the article that more or less says "four engines were selected instead of two for several reasons", and proceeds to explain none of them. I doubt many people suspected that Hawker and BAE chose such an unusual configuration for no particular reason. What readers want to know is what those reasons were. If you want to explain it, explain it where it will do some good for readers. From what I know (which is little), 4 engines were chosen because there was only one engine in the correct thrust/size/weight category, but two of them were not capable of producing enough thrust to meet the performance requirements, and three would have forced them to redesign the whole fuselage and lost many of the benefits they were trying to obtain from the high wing layout. So they just used four, which happened to give a nice surplus of power that aided TO performance, and also unintentionally aided the low noise output (although the geared fans have more to do with that).

64.222.105.236 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"G-BXAR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G-BXAR&redirect=no G-BXAR] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.