Talk:Sutton Wick air crash/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Those found responsible for fitting the valve were prosecuted and charged." "Prosecuted" happens after "charging", but does this actually mean convicted rather than charged? What exactly were they convicted of?

As is noted in the Aftermath section, they were found not guilty of the main charge, although Ward's report did not specify what the "main charge" actually was, only stating that they were prosecuted under the Air Force Act. I have noted this in the lead accordingly, with a reference to Ward's report. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight history

"The Beverley departed RAF Abingdon,[4] a base that had been used as a training station for RAF Bomber Command throughout the Second World War, bound for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, carrying freight, a relief crew and eight RAF policemen with their dogs." Trying to cram too much into this sentence.

Split into two sentences: "The Beverley departed RAF Abingdon,[5] a base that had been used as a training station for RAF Bomber Command throughout the Second World War, bound for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. On the day of the crash, the aeroplane was carrying freight, a relief crew and eight RAF policemen with their dogs." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As the Beverley turned on final approach to RAF Abingdon, power was applied to the remaining three engines". The passive "power was applied" reads strangely here.

I have re-written the sentence to read: "As the Beverley turned on final approach to RAF Abingdon, the crew applied power to the remaining three Bristol Centaurus engines". If you are confused about what applying power to engines actually means then I will also be glad to clarify that in the article. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, his aeroplane became uncontrollable and struck a number of high tension cables, some trees, which ripped the port side wing from the fuselage, and impacted with the ground." I can't quite make out how this should be punctuated, but it certainly isn't like this. Was it the trees or the cables that ripped off the port side wing, or both?

Ward's report does not specifically state which severed the wing. It reads that "it [the plane] veered to port, struck some power lines about 30 ft. above the ground and subsequently some trees, severing the port outer main plane." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 09:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

"A Board of Inquiry investigated the crash and found that the accident was due to the loss of power to the No. 1 and No. 2 engines". It wasn't a loss of power to the engines, but from the engines.

Fixed. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ward continued, saying that the loss of power to No. 1 was caused by it being feathered as a precautionary measure". As above.

Fixed. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No. 2 fuel tank had been isolated and two smaller fuel tanks on the port had not been selected during the flight". On the port what?

Fixed. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the Board did note that the quantity of fuel was limited and he had no reason to believe that the engines could not use the two main tanks satisfactorily." This isn't a proper sentence.

Fixed. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by East of Borschov[edit]

Not to interfere with MF's verdict...

General comment: language, at times, sounds too ... fancy? too many unnecessary words (I am not a native English speaker, and rarely comment on style).

Hmm. I have tried my best to keep between interesting prose and encyclopedic description of the accident. Could you perhaps be more specific as to what I need to change? WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: description of the crash is sourced to Mr. Ward's presentation of the Board of Inquiry report. I'd recommend to make it clear from the very start.

Done. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"one of four Bristol Centaurus engines tasked with powering the Beverley" - unnecessary.

MF has fixed this. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description of feathering - too long for the purpose.

Shortened WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"increase efficiency, likely vital if the aircraft was rapidly losing fuel" - was it really important if they had to return and land immediately? I'd suppose that they would rather wish to dump the fuel to have just enough for a landing run.

Well, I've removed that sentence. I'm not an aviation expert, rather more I am interested in it, and I would agree with you that dumping would have been the best thing to do. I'm not sure why they didn't dump, but it is not up to me to speculate about what the crew did. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"requested a blind approach" - please clarify. What time it was, day or night, what kind of weather?

I only started working on the article about a month ago, and at the time that phrase was already there. I will ask MilborneOne to clarify it, since he created the article last year and has been working on it since. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to instrument approach, a blind approach means he was being guided by instruments or radar and not just looking out of the window. Still looking for information about the weather, it appears to have been during the day looking at the images in the Times but no information on the weather. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"large loss of fuel from the No. 2 fuel tank" - ambiguous (the loss was recorded by the tank's meters, but it actually occured downstream, at the engine. The tank itseld did not leak, or did it?).

I assume you mean that it should be made clear that the fuel leaked from the engine, not the tank (which, as far as I am aware, it did.) I have repharased the sentence and I hope it is clearer: "A short time later, cockpit instruments alerted to flight crew to a large loss of fuel from the No. 2 fuel tank—which was powering engine No.1—the second of four such tanks in the port wing of the aeroplane."

"power was applied to the remaining three engines" - clarify. They were ascending after takeoff, right? Weren't they supposed to be on full power already? Or did they reduce throttle after seeing the leak?

None of the sources describe throttle movement apart from when the crew applied power before the crash. Since they increased power, it is safe to assume that they had previously decreased it—although when they did this is not clear. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

two "However"s in one paragraph.

Fixed. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"George Ward told Geoffrey de Freitas" - false impression of a private talk between two men. Ward spoke to the House, not de Freitas.

Fixed. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"prosecuted and charged,[5] but a court found that they were not guilty of the main charge" - clarify: what was the main charge, and did the court establish any guilt (non-"main charge") at all?

Again, none of the sources state what the main charge was (I can only assume it was negligence) or whether they were found to be guilty on any other charges. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend mentioning "lessons learned" from the "Aftermath" section in the lead.

Done. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: How did the crash affect the British society? How did the society react? Was it perceived as national tragedy, or just "a day in life"?

That would certainly be an exceptionally interesting addition to the article, but none of the sources mention it at all. Finding sources for this article has been the biggest challenge and I've pretty much squeezed Google and Google books dry for this article. I will continue looking, but I'm not sure I will find anything. You could argue that because there are not many sources, it was not a national tragedy, but it wouldn't be up to GA-scratch if things were based on presumptions. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times featured three images from the accident which it called "RAF Transport Aircraft Disaster" as well as the news article. Original research but they treated it with a bit more coverage than a normal military accident (which were common in the 1950s). They also had follow up articles on the condition of the survivors and statement from Blackburn "Production of the machine was going on normally" MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, East of Borschov 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More info[edit]

I have more information on this accident from the following book: Gero, David. Military Aviation Disasters. Patrick Stephens Ltd (Haynes Publishing). Yeovil, Somerset. 1999 1 85260 574 X. I can't use the cite templates so you can add it yourself if you like (pages 66 to 68). The weather was low overcast (8/8 cloud cover) at 500 ft, visibility less than 1,000 ft and easterly winds of 10 knots. The technician was court-martialled for negligence, punishment reduced to a reprimand (does not say what the original punishment was). Also states that functional tests were introduced after 'this type of maintenance had been performed' (standard practise nowadays). Hope that helps.

What does No.1 and No. 2 engine mean? I know but others won't necessarily. There is a link to fuel efficiency which I think is incorrect, they had plenty of fuel onboard. I think it is simple enough to say that the crew feathered the propeller to reduce drag, see critical engine. They would have feathered it to reduce drag and improve controllability (large yawing moment requiring opposite rudder). At a guess they did not dump fuel because they could not (probably no dump system on the Beverley). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant to post this to the article talk page but it might be useful here, can be copied and pasted over there if desired. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is! I think we need to check the use of numbers against WP:ORDINAL, this line All but 4 of the 22 people aboard, which included 5 crew should be All but four of the 22 people aboard, which included five crew I believe. There is a similar line further down. I could be wrong but it's worth checking all the numbers (engines and tank numbers are fine). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as the MoS is concerned, in a list like "All but 4 of the 22 people aboard, which included 5 crew" all the numbers should be in the same format, not some in integers and some in words. The sentence is rather awkwardly worded in any case, and would probably be better as something like "of the 17 passengers and 5 crew on board, only 4 survived". Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On engine numbering we could use the engine number article, I have highlighted that it needs work at WT:AETF. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the main missing information: the time of day of the crash (11:00 am according to the ASN database) and the prevailing weather conditions (thanks to Nimbus above). I think this review can be closed as successful now, Malleus Fatuorum 11:41, 22 September 2010 (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.