![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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?
70.55.86.54 ( talk) 00:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an episode dedicated to this incident, I believe.. 82.3.253.172 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Steve (UK8)
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)
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)
@ 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 →
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.
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 sectionbut one of the things you'll learn when you've been here longer is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Inexplicably, Lancaster was found to be alive.
Ogden was entering the cockpit to offer refreshments to the flight crew– so what?
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. E Eng 20:04, 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)
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.
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)
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. E Eng 22:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
Morning peops, well it looks like our beloved has scuppered that one then! Rodney Baggins ( talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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?
70.55.86.54 ( talk) 00:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an episode dedicated to this incident, I believe.. 82.3.253.172 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Steve (UK8)
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)
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)
@ 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 →
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.
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 sectionbut one of the things you'll learn when you've been here longer is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Inexplicably, Lancaster was found to be alive.
Ogden was entering the cockpit to offer refreshments to the flight crew– so what?
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. E Eng 20:04, 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)
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.
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)
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. E Eng 22:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
Morning peops, well it looks like our beloved has scuppered that one then! Rodney Baggins ( talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)