Talk:2018 Leicester helicopter crash

Requested move 6 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

---

2018 Leicester helicopter crash → Leicester City helicopter crash – Following today's announcement of the reasons for the crash, almost every mainstream UK news outlet carrying the story had "Leicester City" in the report title. So per WP:COMMONNAME it seems appropriate to rename this article accordingly. The year isn't required as it is the first. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above discussion, we should have 2018 in the name, and Leicester not Leicester City was the consensus for naming. Consensus can change, but this has literally only been a month. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Last time it was a close call, and now with today's news I think the balance might have tipped the other way. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – the year in the title is good for clarity, regardless of disambiguation matters, and 'Leicester' is not obscure jargon; it's just as WP:COMMONNAME as Leicester City, plus it follows WP:AATF guidelines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK:, the year only adds clarity if there's been more than one such accident, as there's only one, all it does is add length to the name. Also, with the latest coverage, the name with city seems to have become more prevalent, so we need a compelling reason to ignore Wikipedia policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – one day's worth of semi-uniform naming in press coverage, is barely a justification... cherkash (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion above and per Joseph2302. Ben5218 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ben5218 and Cherkash: it re-confirms the common name though. As it was touch-and-go last time, what good reason could we give now to ignore Wikipedia policy and favour a local project preference? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Sorry for my late reply. I admit that most sources now use Leicester City helicopter crash instead of Leicester helicopter crash. However I still don't think that it's a necessary move to be made since both titles are used by the media now. Also after taking another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, I think that the current title is fine and shouldn't be changed. Ben5218 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose taking the 2018 bit away, but would support 2018 Leicester City helicopter crash, I don't think the City bit should of been taken out of the title. Govvy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AAIB Special Bulletin 2

The current summary of the 2nd AAIB Special Bulletin "Investigators revealed the primary cause for the accident was a pin which had come loose in the tail rotor mechanism" is completely wrong. The AAIB bulletin says that "The initiating cause and exact sequence of the failure that resulted in the loss of tail rotor control is being investigated". They do establish a number of facts though.

The crash was due to the loss of tail rotor control due to the disconnection of the part labelled "control shaft" from the part labelled "lever mechanism". There is a castellated nut on the end of the control shaft that holds the two together. It is normally secured against unscrewing by a cotter pin that goes through a hole drilled across the shaft and the castellation of the nut. This pin did not come loose, it was sheared off because the normally stationary control shaft was being spun by engine torque, most likely because the bearing that was supposed to allow the control shaft to remain stationary has failed. The report details evidence of the bearing having seized completely (as evidenced by CT scans and investigators trying to turn it by hand) and the shaft rotating (as evidenced by the sheared off split pin and the friction welded castellated nut). This is described in the "Findings from the technical investigation" and "Failure sequence" sections of the bulletin.

To sum this all up, "A failure of a bearing caused the tail rotor pitch control shaft to start spinning due to engine torque. This caused the castellated nut that held it onto to the rest of the control system to fail (the friction on the nut from the rotation welded it to the carrier beneath it, causing it to shear the cotter pin and spin off). This loss of control caused the hydraulic servo (which was meant to amplify pilot control input) to run free and push the control shaft, and with it and tail rotor to the full right yaw position, causing unstoppable rotation of the helicopter." Most of this is either spelled out or implied by the bulletin, the investigators are just investigating the exact sequence. Efti (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

King Power being sued by one of the victim's family

Worth mentioning? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-49818113 Wolcott (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)