Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 7

message: The article states that the flight data recorder (FDR) was recovered in a field, and that no evidence of a distress call was found. Now, an FDR records flight data, not audio. This would be done by the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). So what was found in the field, the FDR or the CVR? Both? As I'm reading the article, the absence of a distress call was documented by whatever was recovered, but I can't be certain as I know little of the crash specifics. All I can say is, no audio would have been recovered from the flight data recorder. Can anyone clear this up? TerminusEst 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the 45-page Air Accident Investigation Report to resolve the FDR/CVR problem. It can be found at: Report on the accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988Let us know how you get on with resolving the problem.Phase4 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, just looked through that, and it seems both recorders were found in close proximity of each other. I shall edit the article to reflect that the audio came from the CVR, not the FDR. TerminusEst 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight recorders? 

message: Returning to this page for some specifics of the incident, I've noted some things that are probably attributed to lack of knowledge as to what's what in the aviation industry. Having caught the first little error concering the flight recorders, I'm afraid there are more. I could edit these, but they'd still be largely unsourced, so I'm a bit uncertain what to do? Maybe we simply need to delete and rewrite/resource?
In the "explosion" paragraph, it is particularly confusing, since the incident is being described through "boxes" and "crosses" on a screen, instead of using terms such as primary and secondary surveillance radar (PSR/SSR). 
Likewise, I believe the article halfway implies that the transponder codes of the aircraft provided ATC with altitude, heading and airspeed. This is not true, ATCRBS transponders transmit a squawk code for identification and flight level in 100 ft increments, nothing else. 
The air traffic controller would most likely never have thought anything along the lines of a "zone of silence". Zones of silence, or skip zones are generally associated with amateur radio, not radar. ATC never lost PSR contact with the aircraft (as suggested by the "boxes" fanning out on the scope), but merely SSR replies (technically speaking, this is not even a radar, but a radio).TerminusEst 11:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed these inaccuracies and was equally uncertain of what to do. In actual fact, there are a great number of unsourced, even unsourced and controversial, statements in this article. I'd suggest first clarifying (particularly with the description of 'boxes' and 'crosses'; I'll take a pass at that particular instance just now) or altering anything that looks dodgy, and then going back to take a good look at the entire article to provide sources. There are a good number of references listed, but the sources for particular statements are less easily available. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The statements in the current version of the article are virtually impossible to source, especially regarding Alan Topp's statements. I've been working on a rewrite also, but due to time constraints I haven't made much progress yet. I believe the best course of action here is to base the "explosion" paragraph on the AAIB report alone and disregard Alan Topp (The specific air traffic controller observing the breakup is hardly crucial to the incident). TerminusEst 09:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper understanding of aeronautical terms 

message: "It is time to put right the wrongs. Evidence against the Lockerbie bomber was fabricated and manipulated on both sides of the Atlantic, according to leaked defence documents which appear to undermine the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."
I guess this new article from June 24, 2007 should be added in somehow, maybe a new section in this article? 99.245.173.200 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scotland on Sunday's revelations are all dealt with in Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Publication of the SCCRC's report on June 28, 2007 will no doubt necessitate updating the main Pan Am Flight 103 article, as well as the three sub-articles on the investigation, trial and alternative theories.Phase4 11:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now see Wikinews article:
Phase4 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on broken Chain of Evidence 

message: Just found this: 
Scottish ruling could reopen Lockerbie mystery
Do you think this should be added and a section created on the reopening of the case?
:Sorry, but you should see this article which deals with the reopening of the case.Phase4 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reopening 

message: I have a couple of concerns about this section. Perhaps someone with a deeper knowledge can clarify?
1. Is this known to be the motive for the bombing? Or is it just one theory for the motive? It only makes sense as a motive if one accepts that the bombing was organised or sponsored by the Libyan government.
2. In view of 1., the placing of this paragraph in the article is inappropriate, since it implies such certainty about the motive. 132.244.246.25 07:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be called "Motives" and explored a number of different motives (attributed to eg Iran and South Africa) for the bombing. Now that the section is limited to Libya, I agree it is misleading, especially since Megrahi has just been given leave to appeal against his conviction for the second time (see Lockerbie - But if he didn't do it, who did?). So, I'll do a revision to bring the section into line with current realities.Phase4 16:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Motive" section

message: The following article () discusses this article, and has claims about POV and bias.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting critique by Ludwig Braeckeleer! However, his claims about POV and bias on Wikipedia are directed specifically at the Operation Entebbe article, and not at Pan Am Flight 103. Braeckeleer says that alleged MI5 agent, Linda Mack, was claimed to have steered Pierre Salinger's Lockerbie investigation towards Gaddafi's Libya, once Fhimah and Megrahi were indicted in 1991, and away from other suspects such as Iran and the PFLP. But he does not elaborate on how such a claim could impact upon the integrity of this or any other Wikipedia article.Phase4 11:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article in news