Jump to content

Talk:1983 British Airways Helicopters Sikorsky S-61 crash

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed! (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 23 March 2018 (GA close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Renaming

This article was renamed to conform it to project naming guidelines for air crashes without flight numbers

Yes interesting thought, the official report has British Airways Sikorksy S-61.. but it was operated by British Airways Helicopters so you are correct we should really rename. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seatbelts

  • I'm unclear what this sentence means: "Some of the passengers found inside still had their seatbelts on, indicating the lack of fore-warning of the crash." Surely they'd have their seat-belts on, with a crash imminent; more likely this is an indicator of how quickly the aircraft filled with water. I propose to change the sense, unless I'm getting this wrong somehow. Scoop100 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not supported by the accident report I would suggest removing the sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1983 British Airways Sikorsky S-61 crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Taking a look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 00:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • Dup, dab link, copyvio and link checks all showing up good, except for some paywall issues. (No action required)
  • Reference spot checks: Checked Ref #9, Ref #11 and Ref #21 and all accurately reflect use in the article.

Background

  • Might be worth noting this type of helicopter's safety record at the time, as well as the British Airways Helicopters safety record? Would add some helpful context.
  • Outsider to aviation accident GA nominations here, but perhaps it would be useful to indicate the average operational lifespan of an S-61?

Flight

  • "Oscar November was one of two flights scheduled to fly from Penzance to the Isles of Scilly" - departure and destination airfields would be helpful here in the prose, even though one is named in image.
  • "Delta Alpha departed at 10:46 am, and landed at St Mary's at 11:06 am." indicate time zone if you could.
  • Are there ages for Lucille Langley-Williams and Megan Smith?
  • The background section could also do with some minor explanation on the nature of the flight. Currently it only lists the provenance and the destination by nothing on why this flight occured. Then later two child survivors are mentioned but nothing about why they were being transported with the helicopter.2A02:A03F:5017:BA00:2457:796F:5781:AFC6 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

  • Some switching between S-61 and S61 in this section on references.
  • "Initial speculation in the press..." - which media outlets?
  • "Lynda King Taylor, a reporter who flew over to the Isles of Scilly in the days after..." this sentence needs a bit more context. Did she fly in an S-61 as well? Was it a British Airways flight? Does help to have British Airways contest the allegations, but the implication with the current wording is that these were similar circumstances in the flight itself and it should be clear.
  • "The AIB investigation was carried out by D. A. Cooper. " - Any details on who that is? An AIB investigator?

Legacy

  • Again here, I think a subsequent look at the safety record of the S-61 would be useful, if not to reinforce the pilot error cause in the accident.
  • Did the pilots continue to fly? Any word on what became of the passengers?
  • Any policy or business changes from British Airways?
Thanks for the review Ed! I'm swamped at work at the moment, so am struggling to find time for this. I won't be offended if you feel the need to close it down, but I'm hoping to get to it in the next few days. Harrias talk 08:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Can wait on this one a bit. —Ed!(talk) 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed!: Sadly, I don't think I'm going to be able to give this any time in a hurry. I'll use your pointers to work on it when I'm around again, but for the moment I'm not going to be able to make the suggested improvements to reach the GA criteria I'm afraid. Harrias talk 22:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thank you for your work on it—definitely would love to see it at GA again. —Ed!(talk) 22:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]