Talk:1985 Manchester Airport disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I'm not really up to editing the article. the link to photo of the plane with chutes deployed does not work.. same new site, however, has this article http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/503/503152_air_crash_survivors_join_together_in_tribute.html about the 20th aniversary meetup, with a smaller picture in the article. 90.198.191.74 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959698-1,00.html - This is where it is mistakenly referred to as Flight 328 - Or maybe British Airways has it as flight 328 and Airtours has it as Flight 28?? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "Additionally, the use of thrust reversers did not improve the situation and helped fan the already raging inferno. " This is incorrect. AIB report http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/8-1988%20G-BGJL.pdf pg 165 para 59 "The applicaiton of reverse thrust did not at any stage play an acive role in controllng or influencing the fire beyond the establishment of the turbulant wake referred to in (1) above" (this was a plume of fire as the plan was still at speed and which was dramatic but not disasterous.) 87.81.12.15 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday Image[edit]

It's good to see that the Mayday image wasn't removed and that fair use common sense seems to have prevailed. Perhaps it is safe to presume that Mayday/Seconds From Disaster CGI stills can be used to illustrate all related crashes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies[edit]

The numbers quoted in various places in this article don't add up.

1. 'The aircraft...had 130 passengers and six crew on the manifest'. (discrepancy with #4)

2. '...causing the deaths of 53 passengers and two cabin crew'. = 55 fatalities (discrepancy with #5)

3. '...78 passengers and four crew escaped...' = 82 survivors (discrepancy with #5)

4. 53 passengers dead and 78 survivors = 131 passengers in total (discrepancy with #1, #5)

5. Infobox : 56 fatalities, 80 survivors (discrepancy with #2, #3, #4)

These are pretty glaring to me as a casual reader. Can anyone with more knowledge of or interest in the subject tidy this up with correct figures? 217.44.14.207 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official AAIB report - 131 passengers and six crew (=137), fatal 53 passengers and 2 crew (55), serious injuries 15 passengers (=15), minor injuries 4 crew and 63 passengers and 1 fireman. survivors should be 137-55 = 82. Tweaked the article but it could probably do with another check. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25 year memorial[edit]

Reference here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11050362 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.62.101 (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by in-flight fires seems appropriate here, except that this aircraft never left the ground. Hmmm - but a very notable commercial aircraft fire nonetheless that may be interesting to readers of the in-flight fire category. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documents of final report[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram I made - look useful?[edit]

I thought something like this would help to illustrate how the wind blew the flames directly into the aft fuselage. I am not the world's greatest artist, but I think this will help. Thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I used it, and I expanded the narrative quite a bit, depending pretty much on the AAIB report. I think there are key lessons we learned from this crash, and I wanted to make sure they all got a mention - especially the exit difficulties, Dcs002 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts Dcs002 but the consensus is not to use made-up diagrams in accident articles unless they come from official sources like the accident reports. It can be considered original research and could be misleading, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for letting me know MilborneOne. I didn't know of that consensus. I know US govt. work is generally ok to use (govt employee in the course of their job, not an inherited copyright, etc.), but do you know if figures from the UK AAIB are ok to use? The report says "HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE" and "(C)Crown copyright 1989". I assumed that meant it was not usable without the queen's permission. If it's not usable, do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just put the CSD/G7 tag on the image since it's not useful. Need to keep unusable files out of the database. Dcs002 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded an image from the AAIB report with a fair use justification. If there's a problem using this image, feel free to remove it. I don't know the rules regarding crown copyrights, but I think fair use is justified here. Dcs002 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think an official image with a fair use rationale is ok. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Mayday episode info[edit]

Last week, Nick Cooper reverted my edits, and then didn't respond to my message about those reversions, so I'm reverting the revert. Rather than starting another edit-war, we ought to discuss the matter here if there are concerns. My rationale follows.

My argument isn't that one shouldn't refer to these programs at all, it's that they do not warrant an entire section on every single air accident article in Wikipedia (you'll find that this is pretty widespread, it's as though an air-accident junkie saw all the episodes of Mayday and decided to add a section to every single article). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and re-enactments are not, strictly speaking, documentary in nature; they allow for considerable subjectivity. Many people become aware of these accidents in the first place because they "saw it on TV" and I'm concerned that younger people in particular will confuse watching something on TV with doing real research. Going to the Wikipedia article after having seen something about a subject on television is a common impulse, and finding a reference to a television program you just watched implies a confirmation of the validity of that program. I think that's a problem and it harms the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

To those who say "yes, but it has something to do with the accident", my response is that we don't put every piece of information that can be connected with a subject in the article for that subject; remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a catalog.

For nearly all of these accidents, the complete accident investigation report is freely available; these are prepared with considerable scientific rigour, and qualify as a high-quality source. Citing a TV program when referring to a specific fact or to an interview about the accident is also ok, you'll note I haven't removed those.

So my arguments are, in summary:

  • As a single source of information about an accident, they don't warrant an entire section or paragraph, nor even a stand-alone sentence in the article; articles should be substantiated with as many different sources as possible without giving one particular source deliberate prominence, which would be POV.
  • They contain dramatisations, which already makes them questionable sources. Moreover, access to the source is limited to those who live in regions where the programs are broadcast and who have cable or satellite television, making verifiability a problem. While sources that are not universally accessible are cited elsewhere in Wikipedia, we set a high standard for those sources, and these programs don't meet that standard.
  • They are based largely on sources which are very often already cited elsewhere in the article. This is what makes programs like these appealing to producers: they use information in the public domain and are incredibly cheap to make.
  • The entries are vaguely spammy in nature. Discovery Channel does not need our help advertising.
  • When in doubt, we should leave it out.

I hope that makes some sense. I want Wikipedia to be of the highest quality that we can make it, and stuff like this just makes it seem like a blog. --Rhombus (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal and find your arguments convincing. At the very most I'd support a Wikilink to an article about the whole TV series in a See Also section and any other relevant articles. I'm not really convinced about that either, but it might be supportable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire basis of your argument is bogus, given that the Mayday programme was not being cited as a source of information, but rather that it is a dramatisation of the accident. Simply mentioning that the programme does not implicitly endorse its contents in the way your straw man suggests, but rather is a reflection of the notability of the event.
You admit that this is down to you not liking mention of dramatisations, but note that your similar edit to Air Canada Flight 797 has also been reverted. As the editor who reverted you on that page pointed out, such documentaries often include interviews with investigators and survivors, which has undoubted value in the appreciation of a subject.
Maybe you should raise the issue in general on the appropriate WikiProject page, rather than trying to impose you own arbitrary preferences? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that major networks have produced a documentary about the accident is an important piece of evidence that the accident is notable, and even perhaps more notable than other accidents (though this is debatable). The producers consider the accident notable enough that they think they can make money from the show. The show does put into perspective the many unique circumstances of the crash, and they also synthesize a lot of information for us(which I guess is more of an argument for it being used as a RS than its own topic). The show is released in much of the English-speaking world, and most episodes (this one included, I think, are available on Your Tube. Though more recent episodes are often removed and reposted, the older episodes tend to be more stable on YT. Maybe a link to the YT episode would be a good idea?) The show is officially released in Canada, the US, and UK, and according to our article, South Africa, Australia, Asia and some European countries. That said, I think this is more of a cultural impact than something meriting its own heading. I think the information needs to be in the article, but not as its own heading. However, in the absence of other examples of cultural impact, it would look lonely in that section.
Remember though, cultural impact is not limited to popular culture or media representation. Cultural attitudes have been affected. Airline culture was affected, for example, not just regulations. People were scared and learned things at a personal level about how dangerous their decisions can be regarding thing they never thought to consider. (Obviously this example would need RS, but I hope you get my meaning.) Maybe there was public art placed in Manchester or elsewhere commemorating this crash or the lessons learned?
Or how about this: A section called "Legacy", as distinct from aftermath. Anyway, I think we need to keep the info in the article, but not as its own section. For now, maybe we should park that information in the Aftermath section until we come up with a better plan? Dcs002 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the episode contains interviews that add context, as others have pointed out, then why is it not sufficient to cite those? Does this demand an explicit mention beyond a citation? If so, then where do we draw the line here? We might then ask why there is no stand-alone section for the AAIB report, which is more substantive and reliable. --Rhombus (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that it doesn't warrant an entire section, paragraph or sentence, not that it is of no utility whatsoever. Citing it is fine, or adding it to the "See also" if a Wikipedia article for the episode exists. (As for my approach, I thought it in keeping with the bold, revert, discuss cycle, though I am happy to raise the issue on the relevant Wikiproject page as well.) --Rhombus (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, as a general rule of thumb, the Mayday episode does not merit an entire section. However, many articles on Wikipedia include a section called "In popular culture" which covers the subject's depiction in media (documentaries, books, etc.). If the section were broadened to the topic "In popular culture", then a modest amount of information about the program would be fine. The argument about accessibility is invalid, per WP:PAYWALL. While it's true the episodes are very often found on YouTube, those are copyright violations that we shouldn't be promoting. The OP also mentions "they use information in the public domain and are incredibly cheap to make." That isn't true, the Mayday documentaries are good quality (not a bunch of photos with a narrator) and include lots of computer-generated reenactments of the event and interviews with relevant people to the event and industry experts. As mentioned above, the interviews in the Mayday episodes can be considered reliable sources to use as a reference in the article. While the Mayday episodes are commercial productions, I don't really think it's spam as they are the preeminent documentary series in general on aviation crashes/accidents, but only if the episode is included as part of a section that is broader in coverage (although the section about the episode could be a few sentences). AHeneen (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an accident or incident has been the subject of a Mayday/Aircrash Investigation programme, then that fact should certainly be mentioned in the article. Some accidents, such as the Munich Disaster, have been the subject of several documentaries. The case for a separate section is certainly stronger for those. I don't see that a separate section is harmful, and am not sure where else the info could fit into an article. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think AHeneen makes a good case on a few levels. They are very high quality productions with CGI that constantly amazes me, and they do feature the original players as much as they can (original investigators, survivors, flight crew when possible, controllers, eyewitnesses, etc). They are also narrated in a more descriptive, less emotive style than other cable TV documentaries featuring disasters. So, yeah, it's a quality secondary source. I also understand and agree with the reasons why we should not link to the program directly. I hadn't thought that through. Adding an In popular culture section just to have a place for this show doesn't seem adequate to me for reasons I mentioned above. This accident had a much broader social impact than a great TV documentary. (Maybe that stuff belongs in Aftermath though?) But if there are other pop culture references to this accident, I think that's our answer. If we have a section In popular culture, and the only thing mentioned is this program, then the section might as well be headed In Mayday: Air Crash Investigation. Dcs002 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong coordinates[edit]

The coordinates given for the accident do not correspond with the taxiway the plane turned onto. The plane turned onto Link D. According the map in the report's appendices, the coordinates given are for Link G. - Omega13a (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have just corrected the coordinates. LearyTheSquid (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not part of the solution...[edit]

Section Previous engine repair mentions "solution heat treatment" linking however to Precipitation_hardening. That article says "Precipitation hardening via precipitation heat treatment is the main topic of discussion in this article" mentioning the 'other' treatment Solid solution strengthening.

The cited investigation report PDF does uses the term "solution heat treatment". I have to think that the correct link should be to Solid solution strengthening, from the words used. But not certain enough to change.

The link was established in this edit. I'll ask Dcs002 to comment here. Shenme (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding in a timely manner. When I originally used that phraseology, I was admittedly writing above my head. I am not a materials scientist. I took the information from the report and did my best within WP to find an article that explained what it was. At the time, that led me to the article I linked. I do recall there being differences in the terminology used in the US and the UK, or something of that nature. I remember feeling frustrated at the time that I couldn't find a better description of the process. If I got it wrong, of course it should be changed. I don't know enough about the specific process to have anything more valid to say than what I found in the existing article. I'm sorry if I got it wrong though. Thanks everybody for keeping this article in shape. Criticisms lead to more sound articles! Dcs002 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"solution heat treatment" involves heating the component in a furnace while it is immersed in a hot bath containing the appropriate solution, i.e. a fluid in-which material has been dissolved in order to prevent oxidation of the surface of the component. It is akin to annealing the material so that it is easier to work and less prone to cracking.
A 1985 World in Action programme, "The Last Days of Juliet Lima", about the accident here: [1]

"Accident" section photo[edit]

Can someone get a better photo?

The main subject us so far away and grainy -- especially when enlarged -- that it is nearly impossible to see anything.

It took me several minutes to realize that the plane in question was way in the background and not one of the four in the foreground --- three of which have a left rear mobile ramp and the center one having its right rear door open.

These are what catches the readers' attention first ! ! !

Even the smoke from the plane that is the one in question blends in too much with the background to stand out.

If a better picture/photo can't be found, I suggest that the current photo be taken out. 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a better image can be found then it can be used but I suspect the people involved had other things to worry about that taking nice picture for use in future articles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP makes a good point about where the focus should be in the Accident photo. The best solution I could think of was to add the word "(background)" in the caption.
As I recall, this was the only similar photo taken during the accident. I think one of the controllers took it from the tower. All photos and figures I added to this article (all but the lead photo) are taken from the AAIB report, which falls under Crown copyright, and are therefore usable. Unlike many photos used in NTSB reports, these photos were not attributed to specific individuals, and the only copyright notice given is the Crown copyright. It is possible that the low resolution of this and other photos is the result of using the most common cameras of the day (which used 110 film) or the limited resolution made available by the Crown Printing Office (I think that's the name) to preserve some value to the original owners of the photos not taken by investigators. Dcs002 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct[edit]

When the aircraft stopped, fuel was still leaking from a 270-square-centimetre (42 sq in) opening at a rate of 450 to 680 litres per minute (2 to 3 US gal/s), feeding a growing fire. That should be 200-300 gallons or something. 2-3 gallons wouldn't make that big of a fire and would fall straight through a 42sq in hole instantly.


64.222.108.200 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was 2-3 gallons per second, and 450-680 litres per minute. Divide litres per minute by 60 to get litres per second, and then divide by ~4 to get gallons per second. Someone has chaged it to the value in gallons per minute, which I think is a good fix. Dcs002 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L/R[edit]

Isn't it conventional on vessels and aircraft to use the terms port and starboard rather than "left" and "right" to avoid confusion by people who may be facing in various directions inside the vehicle? This article keeps talking about the left and right exits, but I doubt any such thing existed on the aircraft. Just port and starboard exits.


64.222.108.200 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of left & right come from the source material. In my personal life in the airlines, in the US, left and right are what I found more common, though port & starboard were occasionally used, but the governing principle is the source material. Dcs002 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties diagram[edit]

Potentially a useful diagram but it took me a while to understand it as I think that the following causes confusion:

  • The exits are numbered 1 to 8 but are not referred to in the key. Are they official exit numbers? If not, maybe they could be renamed to A to H and referred to in the key (which would make interpretation of the key easier). This would also prevent mixing up the exit numbers with the number of passengers using each exit
  • The key refers to doors R-35 and L1 but these references are not used on the diagram
  • Rather than using purple hatching to illustrate the number who exited through that exit, I think that it would be clearer if the number zero was used
  • Sometimes the number of people exiting through an exit is on top of the exit icon, sometimes it's alongside; I suggest making the exit icons the same size and placing the number on top. Zin92 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized this page wasn't on my watchlist! Sorry for the very long delay, and thanks for your suggestion. I agree that the diagram is unclear in some ways, but it was the diagram created by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch for its accident report. It was created by a Wikimedia contributor based on the AAIB report, but there are differences I can't explain. I rewrote the caption in a way that I hope is clearer. The 35 on the right is the number of people who successfully exited from that door, which is exit #3, or R3 R1. The exits do have officially designated exit numbers, which are indicated by the numbers in the circles. Exit L1 is the same as exit 1, the captain's side (left) windscreen hatch. It's still not perfectly clear, but I think it's a little better. I'd like your thoughts, if you're still around. Dcs002 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I responded way prematurely, by memory, and I got a few things dead wrong. The numbers in circles by each exit don't come from the AAIB diagram cited by the creator of that image. I don't know what they correspond to, if anything. I've been going through the AAIB report and appendices, and I can't find them. I've removed reference to them from the caption, and I suspect we might need to remove them from the image itself. In the AAIB report, doors L1 and R1 are the left and right galley doors in front. Doors L2 and R2 are the rear doors. The overwing exits and the windscreen exits don't appear to have their own designation. The reference to R-35 in the figure's key was an error. I corrected it. That should have read R1.
Your ideas for revisions all sound good to me, but the creator of that image does not appear to be active anymore. The original image from the AAIB report looks terrible. Dcs002 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 1985 Manchester Airport disaster. Seems like all the participants were happy with, or at least neutral towards, this rename. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Airtours Flight 28M → Manchester Airport disaster – WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search for the current title brings up 24,800 results, compared to 9.85 million for the suggested move destination. See also Stockport air disaster as an example of the proposed naming convention. Other incidents at Manchester Airport listed currently at Manchester Airport#Accidents and incidents were either less notable than this one or occurred away from the airport, so there should not be any confusion with the new title. Buttons0603 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support, I just want to let you know, the google search results number is complete BS. When you search Manchester airport disaster and keep clicking more results it gets less and less relevant. Results 127 is "Wildfires in Anchorage?" and number 128 is "US jobs". There are certainly not 9.85 million results
PalauanReich🗣️ 17:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buttons0603: you should amend the RM to strike that part of it. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article rating[edit]

I've unilaterally bumped the article quality rating to C class, from Start. The Start assessment was done on this version from 2008, and the article is in a much, much better place now. I'll do some digging in the history to work out when the B-class assessment was done; the article probably isn't far off. Brammers (talk/c) 11:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The B-class assessment was conducted in this 2012 edit for this version. The references list has since been expanded, so a check for consistency and agreement could be all that's needed to bump it up to B. Brammers (talk/c) 12:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1985_Manchester_Airport_disaster&oldid=1196220784"