Talk:1983 British Airways Helicopters Sikorsky S-61 crash

Renaming

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

• Milb, should this page be renamed 1983 British Airways Helicopters Sikorsky S-61 crash? Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

It is not supported by the accident report I would suggest removing the sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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)

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

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?
  • I need to have a look around for more information on both of these. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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.
  • Added. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• "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?
  • Added. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

Investigation

• Some switching between S-61 and S61 in this section on references.
  • Sorted in prose. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• "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?
  • Yes, clarified. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Not a problem. Can wait on this one a bit. —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1983 British Airways Sikorsky S-61 crash/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Lead - " in the Atlantic Ocean, when en route" - Should this be "while en route"?

Yup, changed. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"when the Boeing 234LR Chinook" - "When a Boeing ..."? The current wording implies that there was only one Boeing 234LR Chinook. (Unless, of course, 234LR is a callsign, in which case the is correct).

Sort of; you are cutting it off too early: "the Boeing 234LR Chinook helicopter G-BWFC" is the one helicopter in question. It's just the same as saying "the politician Bernie Sanders". Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox - What does ... next to the injuries signify?

Never in the whole time that I have worked on this article have I noticed that. Removed it. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Background - Wikilink certificate of airworthiness.

Done. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Flight - "The actual visibility recorded at St Mary's aerodrome" - Should aerodrome be capitalized here, like previously?

Capitalised for consistency. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"that Delta Alpha had landed, and flown the entire journey according " - Is this comma necessary?

Removed. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"and as they passed by Longships Lighthouse ... hey recorded visibility" - The subject is the helicopter. Either the crew or something along those lines needs to be inserted to become the subject, or a change to it is probably in order.

Reworded. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Rescue - The lifeboat's a redlink. Is it likely that this thing will pass GNG? If not, maybe the links should be removed.

Yeah, probably not. Delinked both. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikilink MP, this isn't particularly obvious from a non-UK perspective.

Linked on first use. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Recovery Should Falmouth be wikilinked? Not everyone's gonna now where Falmouth is in relation to the accident (I don't, at least).

Yes, linked. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Investigation - Parliament should be capitalized, right?

Yes, linked. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You talk about Hughes, the Labour MP, should the Labour Party be wikilinked to? Sort of like in the US referring to so-and-so, a Republican congressman?

Yes, linked. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"involving Sikorsky S-61" - Is this quite right? My instincts say either making Sikorsky S-61 plural, or stating "the Sikorsky S-61". I might be wrong, though.

Yes, added "the". Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Would it be off-topic to state if the pilot, Lawlor, lost his pilot's license or not?

There's nothing verifiable that says one way or the other. He flies now, but I can't tell you for sure if he continued flying throughout, or had to stop and redo a course, or anything like that. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Does the definition of ditching in the notes need a citation?

It is essentially just a convenience note; it is a non-controversial factual definition, I don't think a citation is necessary. I could add one easily enough if you disagree. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The refs all look reliable, and the fair-use rationale on the retrieval picture is proper.

That's it, pinging nominator, Harrias. Hog Farm (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias ^talk 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: - All concerns satisfactorily addressed, passing for GA status. (I'm fine with the ditching definition being considered uncontroversial, a FA review might flag that, though). Hog Farm (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)