# Talk:1946 Australian National Airways DC-3 crash

Wikipedia's guidelines on the title for articles about accidents involving an aircraft operated by an airline indicate the title should be based on the name of the airline, followed by the Flight number.  In this case, even though the aircraft was operated by Australian National Airways, none of the sources indicate a Flight number for the aircraft on its final flight, or on any other flight.  Consequently I have chosen to use a name based on the best-known identifier of the accident - the location from which the wreckage and the bodies were recovered - Seven-Mile Beach.  The Flight number is also not used in the Wikipedia article about another accident involving an aircraft operated by Australian National Airways - ANA Skymaster Amana crash.
I have spelled the name with a hyphen because most of the best sources spell Seven-Mile Beach with a hyphen - for example: SEARCH FOR PLANE WRECKAGE AT SEVEN-MILE BEACH Dolphin (t) 05:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

On 3 October Petebutt changed the title from Australian National Airways Seven-Mile Beach crash to 1946 Australian National Airways DC-3 crash. Dolphin (t) 06:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The investigation panel considered inadvertent engagement of the automatic pilot to be the most likely explanation of the accident
The point here is that in the older type of autopilot it was possible to engage the system before the gyroscopes had had time to spin-up. This resulted in unusual manoeuvres by the aircraft and could, if not noticed quickly, have caused the aircraft to descend into the sea. The fact that the gyros were 'caged' (meaning that they were secured and not free to rotate) suggest that the autopilot may have been inadvertently engaged without the gyros spinning. This leads to the behaviour described above. In these types of autopilot it was necessary to turn on the system and allow the gyros to reach their operating speed before then engaging the autopilot.
I remember this behaviour being described by a Lancaster pilot, and the aeroplane wallowed all over the place and entered tight turns and steep dives until he realised what he had done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:1946 Australian National Airways DC-3 crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll be conducting a full review shortly. My initial observations are that the lead needs expanding to provide a better summary of the article - such as the inquiry - per WP:LEAD. I'm also not enamoured with the number of notes - I feel a number could be included in the text - but this doesn't fall under any of the criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Image check: all fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources and referencing all fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I note the lead problem is still extant. Also, the number of single sentence paragraphs should be minimised per WP:LAYOUT; here, it is excessive: the paragraphs mostly deal with similar content and could be merged. The general standard of the prose is good, I'll check for any small mistakes shortly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The article contained three single-sentence-paragraphs.  All three have now been eliminated by merging them with adjacent paragraphs - see the diff.  I will expand the lead paragraph if someone will give a hint about what information should be added. Dolphin (t) 07:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The investigation, inquiry and recommendations, as mentioned by me above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.  I'm working on it. Dolphin (t) 12:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.  See the diff. Dolphin (t) 05:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're happy with the small tweaks I've made, I'm happy to pass. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your tweaks.  I have only one concern and that is your use of the expression all similar aircraft.  This is ambiguous because it could be referring to aircraft of the Douglas DC-3 type, or it could include types of similar-looking aircraft in commercial operation in Australia at the time, such as the Lockheed Lodestar.  In fact, the Department of Civil Aviation's actions were directed only at Douglas DC-3 aircraft so I think it is important for the article to identify the aircraft type rather than use the imprecise expression all similar aircraft.  The Department's actions were directed only at DC-3 aircraft registered in Australia, and not at DC-3 aircraft registered in any other country, but that is not mentioned in any of the source documents so I concede it should be omitted. Dolphin (t) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that seems sensible. Passing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your efforts and participation in this exercise! Dolphin (t) 22:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)