Talk:1985 Manchester Airport disaster

message: I'm not really up to editing the article. the link to photo of the plane with chutes deployed does not work.. same new site, however, has this article http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/503/503152_air_crash_survivors_join_together_in_tribute.html about the 20th aniversary meetup, with a smaller picture in the article.   90.198.191.74 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It's good to see that the Mayday image wasn't removed and that fair use common sense seems to have prevailed. Perhaps it is safe to presume that Mayday/Seconds From Disaster CGI stills can be used to illustrate all related crashes ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mayday Image

message: The numbers quoted in various places in this article don't add up.
1. 'The aircraft...had 130 passengers and six crew on the manifest'. (discrepancy with #4)
2. '...causing the deaths of 53 passengers and two cabin crew'. = 55 fatalities (discrepancy with #5)
3. '...78 passengers and four crew escaped...' = 82 survivors (discrepancy with #5)
4. 53 passengers dead and 78 survivors = 131 passengers in total (discrepancy with #1, #5)
5. Infobox : 56 fatalities, 80 survivors (discrepancy with #2, #3, #4)
These are pretty glaring to me as a casual reader.  Can anyone with more knowledge of or interest in the subject tidy this up with correct figures?  217.44.14.207 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Official AAIB report - 131 passengers and six crew (=137), fatal 53 passengers and 2 crew (55), serious injuries 15 passengers (=15), minor injuries 4 crew and 63 passengers and 1 fireman. survivors should be 137-55 = 82. Tweaked the article but it could probably do with another check. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies 

message: Reference here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11050362  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.62.101 (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 year memorial 

message: :Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by in-flight fires seems appropriate here, except that this aircraft never left the ground.  Hmmm - but a very notable commercial aircraft fire nonetheless that may be interesting to readers of the in-flight fire category. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: * http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports/8_1988_g_bgjl.cfm - http://www.webcitation.org/6P1NvFwLg
* http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/8-1988%20G-BGJL.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6P1NxJsVx
* http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/8%2D1988%20G%2DBGJL%20Append%2Epdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6P1NzxQpB
WhisperToMe (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documents of final report 

message: I thought something like this would help to illustrate how the wind blew the flames directly into the aft fuselage. I am not the world's greatest artist, but I think this will help. Thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I used it, and I expanded the narrative quite a bit, depending pretty much on the AAIB report. I think there are key lessons we learned from this crash, and I wanted to make sure they all got a mention - especially the exit difficulties, Dcs002 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your efforts Dcs002 but the consensus is not to use made-up diagrams in accident articles unless they come from official sources like the accident reports. It can be considered original research and could be misleading, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks for letting me know MilborneOne. I didn't know of that consensus. I know US govt. work is generally ok to use (govt employee in the course of their job, not an inherited copyright, etc.), but do you know if figures from the UK AAIB are ok to use? The report says "HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE" and "(C)Crown copyright 1989". I assumed that meant it was not usable without the queen's permission. If it's not usable, do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put the CSD/G7 tag on the image since it's not useful. Need to keep unusable files out of the database. Dcs002 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I just uploaded an image from the AAIB report with a fair use justification. If there's a problem using this image, feel free to remove it. I don't know the rules regarding crown copyrights, but I think fair use is justified here. Dcs002 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an official image with a fair use rationale is ok. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram I made - look useful? 

message: The coordinates given for the accident do not correspond with the taxiway the plane turned onto. The plane turned onto Link D. According the map in the report's appendices, the coordinates given are for Link G. - Omega13a (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I have just corrected the coordinates. LearyTheSquid (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong coordinates 

message: When the aircraft stopped, fuel was still leaking from a 270-square-centimetre (42 sq in) opening at a rate of 450 to 680 litres per minute (2 to 3 US gal/s), feeding a growing fire.
That should be 200-300 gallons or something. 2-3 gallons wouldn't make that big of a fire and would fall straight through a 42sq in hole instantly.
64.222.108.200 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not correct 

message: Isn't it conventional on vessels and aircraft to use the terms port and starboard rather than "left" and "right" to avoid confusion by people who may be facing in various directions inside the vehicle? This article keeps talking about the left and right exits, but I doubt any such thing existed on the aircraft. Just port and starboard exits.
64.222.108.200 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  L/R 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've unilaterally bumped the article quality rating to C class, from Start. The Start assessment was done on this version from 2008, and the article is in a much, much better place now. I'll do some digging in the history to work out when the B-class assessment was done; the article probably isn't far off. Brammers (talk/c) 11:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The B-class assessment was conducted in this 2012 edit for this version. The references list has since been expanded, so a check for consistency and agreement could be all that's needed to bump it up to B. Brammers (talk/c) 12:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating