Misplaced Pages

Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:50, 1 February 2019 editMartinevans123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers234,095 edits →Pilot negligence?: cmnt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:48, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/Archive 1) (bot 
(43 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Sub judice UK}} {{British English}}

{{ITN talk|22 August|2015}}
{{Article history
{{WPBS|1=
|action1=GAN
⚫ {{WikiProject Aviation |class=B |b1=y |b2=y |b3=y |b4=y |b5=y |Accident=y |importance=Mid}}
|action1date=17:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
⚫ {{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=low}}
|action1link=Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/GA1
⚫ {{WikiProject Disaster management |class=B |importance=Low}}
|action1result=listed
⚫ {{WikiProject Sussex |class=B |importance=Mid}}
|action1oldid=1

|currentstatus=GA
|itn1date=22 August 2015
⚫ |otd1date=2017-08-22|otd1oldid=796629664
|otd2date=2020-08-22|otd2oldid=974379459
|otd3date=2022-08-22|otd3oldid=1105586108
|topic=Engineering and technology
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{british english}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Aviation|b1=y |b2=y |b3=y |b4=y |b5=y |Accident=y }}
⚫ {{WikiProject Death|importance=low }}
⚫ {{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Sussex|importance=Mid}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
Line 17: Line 32:
|archive = Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
⚫ {{OnThisDay|date1=2017-08-22|oldid1=796629664}}
{{archives|search=yes}} {{archives|search=yes}}


== Wrong location referenced for airport and crash site. ==
==Final report==
The AAIB final report into the accident will be . This has been confirmed by local TV news. ] (]) 18:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:AAIB now saying the report will be published 3 March. ] (]) 12:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::I've read the report in full. Although pilot error is given as the primary cause, there are underlying factors including the airworthiness of the aircraft, CAA oversight of the airshow organizers and maintainers of the aircraft and other factors. Maybe best to discuss here first before adding to the article. ] (]) 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

:::""The aircraft crashed because at the top of its aerobatic manoeuvre it was too low to complete it."" - BBC news item on AAIB report here: <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::95.149... yes, noted and covered in article already.
::::OK, been digesting the report. Things I think worth mentioning are the the initial climb in the loop was not performed at full throttle, AAIB unable to determine whether or not the condition of the fuel pump diaphragm was a contributory factor or not. Pilot had not practiced escape manoeuvres. A/C permit to fly validation was not legal, and had not been since 2010. Method of renewing Display Authority on different type of a/c. Possibly worth mentioning the ejector seat issues, and tip tanks being made of phenolic asbestos thus hazardous to first responders. ] (]) 19:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::All good points. Agree. ] (]) 21:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::If I can contribute to this "brainstorming" session, what I found the most striking aspect of the report is the way the AAIB draws a distinction between cause of the accident (pilot error) and severity of the outcome (imperfect organisation). ] (]) 13:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

== Rename? ==

How has this escalated from a "crash" to a "disaster"? Also, in the past we used to discuss renames ''first''.] (]) 15:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
:Fair question. I see that ] is still called just a "crash", although it killed 31. ] (]) 15:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
::I hate it; I think it should have been discussed first; I would prefer it to return to "crash". I won't lose sleep over it but I still really do not like it. ] (]) 20:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:::I see this has now been moved by ], but without any further discussion. ] (]) 19:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Martinevans123}} What else do we need to discuss? This incident produced a similar amount of fatalities as the ], ] and ], all under similar titles. Even the ] with 31 fatalities falls under a similar title. This incident doesn't come anywhere close to the number of casualties produced by the Ramstein or Sknyliv air show disasters, so it seems like a relatively uncontroversial move. ] (]) 19:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I can't disagree. I just expected to see an input here before it actually happened! I'm not sure who actually moved to "disaster" and when, are you? I see you were last here in August 2015.‎ Thanks. ] (]) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::+1 for the renaming, also because now the title contains the year. --] (]) 19:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Martinevans123}}Well I usually do add my input on the talk page before a decision is made when it comes to moving a page, however I figured that since no one had replied to this section for a while that there was already a good consensus. As for the user who moved the page to "disaster", it seems to be ] on November 4, 2017, in ] (]) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks, for that. Yes, it was more as a courtesy to ], really. I see that George was editing only yesterday, so maybe he will give his input. ] (]) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::I moved it under what was at the time ] (having waited at least a year I think it was after the crash to do so to let it settle) and hence thought it would be uncontroversial, but looking at Google results now the "crash" name seems to have re-emerged as the more common name so if you feel it would be better to move it back then I don't have any opposition to this. ] (]) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::: ] that, George <small>(... although not as romantic as ], of course).</small> ] (]) 21:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Conflict of interest - I love the rename but think we should probably have discussed it here first! <small>Tut, what a big old hypocrite I am!</small> Cheers ] (]) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

== Prosecution ==

Can we decide which of these statements is true.
* "The trial of Hill began (...) on 19 April 2018".
* "The trial started on 15 May".
* "The trial began as scheduled on 14 January".
And delete the two that aren't. ] (]) 07:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
:They are all true. The first is the date of the hearing at the Magistrates Court; the second is the start of the main hearing before it was adjourned. The third is the start after the adjournment. ] (]) 13:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

== Pilot negligence? ==


There is No mention of Lancing even though the airport and the crash were both in lancing not Shoreham. Tried editing but removed. ] (]) 09:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Would this be classed as pilot negligence? From what I’m seeing on the news it sure does sound like it.


Lancing is listed as the location of the airport in other wiki pages but not mentioned here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Brighton_City_Airport ] (]) 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9vyzS5rp7M4
{{Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/GA1}}


==Did you know nomination==
] (]) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
{{Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Shoreham Airshow crash}}


==Potential edit war==
:There is currently a criminal trial underway to determine the answer to exactly that question. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|ED12345555|Toddy1}} we're not going to ] over whether or not the United Kingdom is linked in the lede, are we. It would be a pity to have to open my banhammer case this side of Xmas. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:The defense case seems to rest on the claim that Hill was incapacitated, or at least impaired, by the g-forces of the manoeuvre. A brief news clip, like that ITV snippet, can't properly examine the exact timeline of those g-forces (which may or may not have been accurately recorded for later scrutiny) nor with the issue of whether the incapacitation was recklessly, or unintentionally, self-inflicted. ] (]) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:48, 18 December 2024

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good article2015 Shoreham Airshow crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2023Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 22, 2015.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 22, 2017, August 22, 2020, and August 22, 2022.
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAviation: Accidents
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSussex Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Wrong location referenced for airport and crash site.

There is No mention of Lancing even though the airport and the crash were both in lancing not Shoreham. Tried editing but removed. 86.16.123.86 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Lancing is listed as the location of the airport in other wiki pages but not mentioned here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Brighton_City_Airport PrinceAndrewoops (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): I am very happy with spelling and grammar. Prose is quite clear and does not use a lot of technical language and understandable to a broad audience. However can you please rephrase this line: Hill, the pilot, was thrown clear of the aircraft in his ejection seat, which was live when the aircraft departed from North Weald.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I run the article through checks. Both automatic and manual, chance of plagiarism is very low.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    On hold. Great article, please can you just change the line that I stated above. Trains2050 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Trains2050: Reworded, and clarified that the live seat posed an additional danger to rescuers. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Mjroots: Thanks so much for making these changes! After reviewing the criteria, I am confident that no further changes are needed so I am passing this article. Thanks again for your cooperation during theis review. Have a great day! Trains2050 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Trains2050: and thank you for the review! Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

( )

Improved to Good Article status by Mjroots (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2015 Shoreham Airshow crash; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

    • The article, which was started on the date of the crash, was nominated on 8 March 2023, the date it was approved as a Good Article.
    • I have reviewed the Good Article review, and all seems to be in order.
    • Both hooks are accurate and are supported by various reliable sources.
    • Good-quality sources are used throughout. The quality of the prose is also good.
    • Unfortunately, the article was featured in the prose section of the "On this day" section of the Main Page on 22 August 2022 (link), which makes it ineligible for DYK on the face of it (based on DYK criterion 1c). A shame, as this is clearly a high-quality and important article which would benefit from appearing again on the Main Page, especially since significant further developments have happened since August 2022 in relation to the inquest. I wonder if we could invoke WP:IAR in view of this...?

Let's get some more thoughts on this from experienced DYK personnel. I would be happy to support the article appearing on DYK despite its appearance at "On This Day" within the last year, in view of the updates which have happened since then. In its present state the article and both hooks are suitable for DYK except for this issue. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Nah, just withdraw. When I nominated this I didn't realize it had been on OTD last year. I think I saw that it appeared in 2020 and thought that it was okay without realizing that it appeared last year. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential edit war

@ED12345555 and Toddy1: we're not going to edit war over whether or not the United Kingdom is linked in the lede, are we. It would be a pity to have to open my banhammer case this side of Xmas. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: