Talk:Vauxhall helicopter crash

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

Flight/Owner Details[edit]

It's not confirmed for sure yet, but it appears that the helicopter was owned by Castle Air, but on lease to a company called RotorMotion. The Castle Air site (www.castleair.co.uk) is now down due to high load. It would be good to get sources other than pprune.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.252.227 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of crash[edit]

The Location appears to be ouside Wendle court 131-137 Wandsworth Road --Genesis12 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get some coords up ASAP please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here?

G-CRST[edit]

Do we have a citation for G-CRST being the registration of the aircraft involved, as added recently by an IP user? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

I'm somewhat perplexed by the notability tag on this article. This was a major incident for London's emergency services, and is something that's never happened before in Central London. It's already likely to prompt changes in practice, and perhaps legislation. If others are agreed we should probably remove the template. What next, a completely unnecessary afd discussion? Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this article falls afoul of both WP:NOTNEWS and the standard for air accidents at WP:AIRCRASH. It is a simple news item that is unlikely to have any enduring effects in terms of procedures, ATC or airworthiness and no Wiki-notable people were involved (meaning people with a biography on Wikipedia already). Once the story dies down a bit it will likely be sent to WP:AFD, with or without the tag left on it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's the first such event in London since records began. It caused deaths, injuries, transport disruption and prompted questions in the House of Commons. It's notable in that it was reported around the world (look at the ITN nomination), and the sources show a wide amount of coverage. I accept your point about both policies, but Wikipedia is based on compromise and convention as much as rules and regulations, so I'm sure we can sort something out. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is no more notable than this accident which also garnered major news headlines on most national news outlets and closed a major freeway for more than six hours, disrupting more traffic than this helicopter crash did. No one would argue that we should have articles on every car or truck accident, though. The press sensationalizes aviation accidents and Wiki editors tend to fall into that same trap. We are already discussing this accident at the Aviation accident task force and the consensus building there is that it is no more notable than the thousands of other light aircraft accidents that happen each year. Unless this accident results in some sort of lasting effects, like airworthiness directives or changes in procedures then it is non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it probably is a lot more notable than the road traffic accident you mention above, and at the very least it meets the general notability guidelines. For one thing this has raised questions about safety issues regarding helicopter flights over heavily urbanised areas, and will at least lead to a debate on the issue. No doubt there'll also be an inquiry. On the issue of the involvement of Wiki-notable people, correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine the vast majority of aviation-related incidents don't involve people mentioned here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That road accident also meets WP:GNG. The WP:AIRCRASH criteria including notable people is only a small percentage of accidents, but it is a consensus criteria that allows us to tie accidents to biographies, such as Buddy Holly for instance. Right now on this accident all the politicians are making the usual "tut-tut" noises, but let's see if it does result in any material changes over time. Usually once the press stops carrying the accident (on about day three) then the politicians get quiet on it too, an acknowledgment that it has no enduring value. We'll see how this all looks in a month or two, but as it stands right now it doesn't make WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:AIRCRASH or WP:EVENT and so probably won't be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect the importance of Wikipedia policy and accept your view that there are policy shortcomings. However, as I'm sure you're aware, policy can and will be changed as circumstances allow and there is a basis for retaining this article as a notable event given its circumstances and rarity. I take the point that political policy might not change, so maybe we should be alert to what happens whilst not being quite so eager to press "delete". By the way, if there was a road accident which you think is/was more notable than this event, I'm sure an article could be created for it. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense to suggest a helicopter being destroying by striking a crane over central London, killing its highly experienced pilot and an pedestrian, which then causes a week's worth of traffic disruption in one of the busiest cities in the world is somehow comparable with a sign falling onto a road causing minor disruption and no injuries. Still, looking forward to the AFD that Ahunt seems to be threatening already! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with that. On another note, I wonder if there isn't scope for an article about the pilot (if we don't already have one). According to this from the Evening Standard, Peter Barnes flew helicopters in stunt films and worked for a company whose clients include distinguished people such as David Cameron and the Dalai Lama. I'll have a look, and if there isn't one I'll create a redirect here for now, but I think it's worth considering a separate page. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point was simply that these sorts of accidents, helicopters hitting objects and crashing, happen on a weekly basis worldwide and most get very little press, because they happen in more remote locations, not within blocks of press offices. As I indicated above the consensus at WikiProject Aircraft is to wait until this issue dies down and see if there are any lasting effects from it or not. If there are no ADs, procedural changes or other fallout then it will probably get sent to AFD in a few months. No rush, but right now it doesn't make WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:AIRCRASH or WP:EVENT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were claiming that a sign falling off and hurting no-one was of equivalent notability to an event which killed people, injured people, destroyed a helicopter, and a crane on to of a fifty-storey unfinished building and caused traffic mayhem for many days in one of the world's busiest cities. I must have mis-read... As for the pilot, yes he seemed to be quite a star in his own field. If sufficient notability exists, then an article about him would no doubt close this whole debate down. Also, could User:Ahunt indicate where at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft there's a consensus about this article as he claims? Also probably worth noting at this point that this oft-quoted WP:AIRCRASH is just a Wikiproject bit of advice and has little-to-no relevance. I'd lose the focus on that and concentrate on whether the event, the first ever fatal helicopter crash in the city of London despite 18,000 flyovers of the city each year, is notable. Also, as a matter of principle, what makes the Aircraft wikiproject think their criteria for inclusion are more significant than the other wikiprojects noted on this talkpage? Inclusion criteria essays are prevalent at a number of projects, and I see four banners above. Who knows, the London Wikiproject might just think this meets their own notability guidelines (e.g. first fatal helicopter accident in the history of London).... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed out a word from the source thought to be the first fatal helicopter crash in central London. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite so, my mistake. Other sources suggest it is since records began in 1976 (much as I loathe it, the Daily Mail seems to have published it. It's not unusual to assume "since records began" to be a good starting point for "ever". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, better still, the CAA agree with the "since records began". Much better than the Mail.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compeltely agree with The Rambling Man. This is a significant event for London as a location, and for disaster management in the UK in general. It matters not a jot if on some arbitrary definition it "doesn't count" on a global aviation scale. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barnes (pilot) is now an article. I've added a bio and some details from this page about the crash. Feel free to expand and improve it. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he flying[edit]

What was the purpose of his flight at that time. People must have reasons for flying helicopters, it is important enough to be mentioned but is not in the article at the moment. Has this information been reported in news or other sources. Was he working, transporting something, practicing, or was he flying for recreation? Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was flying from Redhill (where the helicopter was based) to Elstree to pick up a passenger who had presumably hired the helicopter to go somewhere else. So it would called a positioning flight. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter[edit]

I do not think Twitter should be used as a source as whilst it may provide up-to-date info the way it is run it is the equivalent of a forum. Please see WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 15:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found a TfL report as a suitable replacement. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Twitter should not be used but at the time of the article's creation I had to find citations for specific points at speed. I wouldn't usually use Twitter as a source, it was just as circumstances required. What I will say - and this is perhaps a point for a different venue - I'd argue that verified Twitter accounts could be regarded as being more reliable than non-verified. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

File:Vauxhall helicopter crash location map - 01.jpg
Is this fit for the article?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice yes, however OpenStreetMap allows you to export in SVG format, which is a better for maps. Plus I would add some more important features, including the Houses of Parliament, SIS Building and the London Heliport -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to do that. Making maps in MSPaint from screenshots is my limit. Please feel free to improve on the thing. I'm sure visitors would find it useful. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point, but I believe the centre of the red circle indicating the crash site is located slightly too far to the west. My understanding is the helicopter crashed more or less in the middle of the roadway (Wandsworth Road), if not slightly to the eastern side, adjacent to Wendle Court, which is the building on the east side of the road. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-21041468. The circle currently seems to be centred on the site occupied by the disused petrol station, which is directly opposite on the other side of the road. See Google Street View Dubmill (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Purge cache and you will see the version now has no lines, ready for correction. Thanks for pointing it out. I wasn't sure. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is jpg. Try this one. It's PNG with no words or lines:
PNG with no words or lines
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have lines pointing to where each of the sites are? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would be okay, but I cleared spaces in two areas for the titles. I don't understand the "walking into bells for just 6 years" comment. Is that about the tower? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that part, I have a running joke as part of my signature that has nothing to do with this. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 23:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

If this article is to persist, I suggest a name change in line with guidelines at the Accident project.--Petebutt (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Country of location[edit]

I recently reverted an edit that changed the country of location from England to United Kingdom. I believe it's generally accepted that we stay with whatever term was initially used to avoid edit wars and disagreements over the England v United Kingdom debate. However, it has been pointed out to me by the user concerned that England is not a sovereign state. I have no preference here, but think if any change is to be made then we need consensus on the matter. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that United Kingdom is the preferred country name. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vauxhall_helicopter_crash&oldid=1205639449"