Talk:Air France Flight 4590

message: Much of the text was moved from the Concorde article. WhisperToMe 17:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Text moved

message: One stewardess was actually German as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.27.183 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct on-the-ground death toll is 4.  This article is correct, I will proceed to correct the information on the other article (if it hasn't already been rectified).  Redux 02:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah i already corrected this but someone had it undone, but there really was a german stewardess, the only german in the air france concorde-team  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.227.120 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I Googled it as best I could but only found a partial list of fatalities, and no mention of even the names of the ground casualties, much less their nationalities. I would love to see the addition of this important fact in this article. Microbiojen (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Death count

message: The second picture is incorrect! It is fliped vertically. The plane was starting in the direction shown on the first picture. The amateur movie made form taxi running near the airport, form which the second pictre cames, clearly shows plane starting in the opposite direction than pictured on second photo.
I don't know, if it is important. I only wanted to notice you about this. Maybe someone wishes to correct this photo.
Trejder 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are right. This pic was very widely published at the time. Wasn't it simply taken from the other side? --Guinnog 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right! I looked at  link, provided in External Links section, and miss-recognised the picture. After a close look it seems to be correct - looking by which engine is in fire. I believe that your explanation is very good - this picture was probably taken from the other side. Trejder 09:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture incorrect?

message: I inserted  and after a while removed the following unsourced statement: However, Continental Airlines maintains that FAA regulations do allow the use of the titanium strip and added that this metal was more wear-resistant than the original part.
If anyone has a valid reference, please supply it and re-insert. Thanks, Crum375 13:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for this. --Guinnog 20:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental's statement about the strip's legality 

message: This looks like repeated vandalism concerning Bush - it's totally irrelevant. And I think it would be a good idea to require reference for the Chirac story as I believe this constitutes only a claim made in a book "Supersonic Secrets" and never elsewhere confirmed...
Jimbomu 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Theories; Chirac - Bush?

message: I wonder what the name of the hotel the Concorde crashed into really was. This article has alternatively "Les Relais Bleus" and "Hotelissimo". Of the references, CNN quotes French media for Relais; the French Wikipedia, Aviation-safety.net, and other articles on BBC have Hotelissimo; others (including the BEA report) have "hotel" or nothing. I have no idea, but would guess Hotelissimo is correct. Klehti 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of hotel 

message: A picture of the offending piece of debris would be useful. Bastie (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debris 

message: Who were the crewmembers? Should this be mentioned in the article? Bastie (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew 

message: Reference 14 does not support the facts it is cited in reference to. Please check and correct.
Dioptre (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked into, your concern does not appear to be the case currently.  Please comment if this condition continues to exist but please be more specific.  Veriss (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresented References 

message: "This lethal debris carried the energy in excess of twenty .44 Magnum gun blasts." 
Since when is energy scientifically measured in gun blasts? And it isn't cited, either. Garbage.69.165.148.195 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this fiction 

message: Having carefully read the BEA final report I detected no indication of any weight or ordinal significance assigned to the bullet points found within section 3 - CONCLUSION and the subsections 3.1 Findings or 3.2 Probable Causes.  There is, therefore, no support for the parenthesized statement "in order of importance" that appears at the beginning of the Conclusions section of the article.  I have removed the unsupported statement for this reason. Allenc28 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions

message: WTF is a tyre?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.206.89 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tyre? 

message: I am directly linking these so that they archive:
* http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725/htm/f-sc000725.htm
* http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725/htm/table.htm
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEA links to archive 

message: Centrifugal force is often intuitively confused with centripetal force. However, when this is the case, i.e. when the observer is not spinning around the object he is describing, it is just a fictitious force. The force that prevents the rubber of a spinning wheel from flying away is a centripetal, not a centrifuge force. When there is structural failure of the tyre, the elements that hold the rubber together to spin around the axis of the wheel break apart, the centripetal force is abolished, and rubber fragments fly away following a straight path which is tangential (and not perpendicular) to the rim. When a wheel spins faster, the centripetal force required to prevent the tyre from rupturing is greater, i.e. a sturdier tyre is needed.Sophos II (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centripetal, not centrifugal force 

message: Noticed the explanation in the article states "this British aircraft accident". Are we referring to the nationality of the aircraft manufacturer (British-French joint venture)? Might be better to just say the article uses British English. N419BH 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial versions of the article were written using British English. It is my understanding that that alone, in the absence of any strong connection of the subject matter to a country using another spelling system, determines that British English spellings should be used in this article.   82.41.251.147 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the second of those two justifications is probably the safest on this occasion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The WP:Spelling article discusses differences in spelling within the national varieties of English, including which ones use the tyre and tire spelling variants. The  National varieties of English section of the  Manual of Style gives guidance on how the national variety of English used in particular articles is chosen. It says: When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. I don't think that the topic here has any strong national ties which should affect the variety of English adopted. Has the article evolved sufficiently to make it clear which variety is being used? I would say yes and that it looks as though it's British English that's being employed. If there were to be an argument over whether the article has evolved sufficiently, I don't know who should be called the first significant contributor, though the version history shows that the editor who started the article was using UK & Irish English.       ←   ZScarpia   07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: "Most Americans have no clue what a tyre is." Really? Let me get this straight. So, an American reader would be looking at an article about an aircraft accident - a "foreign" aircraft, at that - and see something like " this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, ruptured a tyre which then burst." or "This metal fragment punctured the Concorde's tyres" or " the tyre of the number 2 wheel" or "the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway" and when they got to "tyre" they'd just be completely stuck? They wouldn't be able to construct anything from the context, or from a similar word in AmE which looks pretty much the same but has one letter different? I mean if that really were a problem then perhaps they could phone a friend, or use Google, or contact the British Embassy for help. But you know I have this sneaking feeling that they might just read the word and translate it to "tire" without it being too difficult. I do this all the time with words like color, analyze, eraser, hood, trunk which are differently spelt, or just different words, in BrE and I claim no special language skills. Is it really, seriously, your claim that this spelling would throw a large number of American readers off completely? I don't mean to be rude but I find it vanishingly difficult to grasp how this could possibly be so. Usually we just live and let live in our varieties of English and we get along just fine. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty clear that the article uses British English. I've added a relevant tag to the talk page, and in case the spelling of tyre confuses some readers, I have wikilinked its first occurrence in the body text. (Hohum @) 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. You are a fine fine editor and I remove my (bowler) hat in homage. :) DBaK (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it DBaK - you tell 'em! - LOL! - BTW, shouldn't that be '(derby) hat' instead of '(bowler) hat'? - LOL! - only kidding. What fun one can have with the colonials.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.100.56 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

text: As an FYI Americans make a very large percentage of the viewers of the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyre vs. Tire 

message: The article doesn't seem to mention why the aircraft was overweight. I saw a show suggesting some luggage was loaded that wasn't supposed to be but none of this is mentioned in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The aircraft was 3000 kg overweight due to he Captain ordering additional fuel as well as also ordering the passenger's baggage to be loaded despite the aircraft then being overweight. The passengers were due to join a cruise liner and so he did not want them to be missing their luggage. The overweight would not have been a problem if the CofG had not been too rearward. This was because the taxiing fuel was not subsequently needed or used, and this additional fuel (and weight) was in the rear fuselage tank. Normally this fuel would have been consumed in taxiing the aircraft to the runway and in the wait before take-off clearance. On the day however there was no delay, and so the fuel was still there when it took-off.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overweight 

message: In "Event summary" we have this: "Five minutes before that decision, a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 destined to Newark (US), lost a titanium alloy strip ..." To me, that reads very oddly - I have never come across the usage "destined to" in this kind of context. I'm not changing it, because maybe it is airline-speak or something, but were it not for that concern I'd be wanting to look for something that read more easily in everyday English. What do you think? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: A quick check on Google (yes I know I know) looking for +"destined to" site:en.wikipedia.org didn't find any examples like this in the first ten pages. (I got bored after that, sorry.) Every example I could find was of the form destined to infinitive like destined to live, destined to die, destined to be, destined to levitate over a vat of custard (I made one of those up) but none of them - so far - is of the form the flight was destined to New York, the flight was destined to Campbeltown, etc. Not exactly scientific, I grant you, but it does increase my unease about this usage, which I feel may be, ahem, destined to change. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No response on this. I've changed it. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event summary wording 

message: English:
*http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/index.php - http://archive.is/CIlxe
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zlVz937X
*http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/concorde.presse.php - http://archive.is/GSZz0
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zlW01amE
*http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/pressrelease16august2000.php
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zlW2CfVv
*http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/pressrelease23july2001.php
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zlW3tcVc
*http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/pressrelease16january2002.php
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zlW4sw2l
*http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2004-18379-0028  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.178.125.218 (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you list all these files?  Veriss (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if the BEA takes them down, we still have access. They have robots.txt on their servers, which means web.archive.org isn't displaying archives of those pages publicly. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was curious because that was a lot of work on your part. I learned something new about archival as well. :) Veriss (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Files

message: Quoting this article: "Also facing fines or a custodial sentence were the designers of the plane, who prosecutors say knew that the plane's fuel tanks could be susceptible to damage from foreign objects, as well as a French official responsible for the regulation of the plane's safety.[36]"
Which plane's fuel tanks?  Is this referring to the Concorde operated by Air France, or the Continental plane?  Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which plane? 

message: This edit makes a good point - Concorde is very often referred to thus, not as "the Concorde". So it is (/was: sob) typical to say "I saw Concorde today" rather than "I saw the/a Concorde today" (though I am far from sure it was never heard). However, I felt the edit may have gone too far too fast, since I think there is certainly room to say "the Concorde" when we are talking about a specific example, as we are at some places, naturally in the article. Do you see what I mean? :) I undid the edit pending a bit of discussion (I hope). Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite article 

message: The aforementioned speed is stated to be 310mph. But it cannot exceed the speed at which the Concorde was rolling at the moment of tyre break-up, which is the speed of the outermost part of the tyre. And that speed cannot itself exceed (and is probably rather less than) the takeoff speed of approximately 250mph. Where did the 310mph figure come from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Concorde main wheel tyres were inflated to 232lb/sq in and due to the severity of the cut the tyre more or less exploded rather than simply bursting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of the tyre fragment into the wing 

message: Having just read the official English translation of the BEA report, it includes a section where the British AAIB participants criticize the French judicial investigation blaming it for restricting their access to material (physical and documentary), and offer a different view on a couple of aspects of the crash. Has anyone other than the AAIB commented on that aspect? Is it of significance to the article - the BEA discounts their different interpretations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAIB and the investigation 

message: The DC-10 current image in the article could be changed by this image? Is the actual DC-10 that caused Concorde accident.Before Continental Airlines as N13067, it was leased by Alitalia to Eastern Airlines as N391EA.PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC-10 image 

message: The claim "French authorities acknowledged that a required runway inspection was not completed after the Continental takeoff, as was protocol for Concorde-takeoff preparation" is not supported by the citation made in reference to it, which actually contradicts it. Neither the ABC News article nor the BEA report mention runway inspections being part of preparations for Concorde takeoff. French airports made three routine runway inspections per day; the inspection of runway 26R scheduled for 3pm had been delayed due to a fire-fighting exercise, but since the Continental aircraft departed at 4:37pm and the Concorde at 4:42pm it is unlikely that an inspection at 3pm would have made any difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktal (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the investigatory team may have wanted to try and rule out the possibility that the metal strip had come from some other aircraft that had taken off before the Continental Airlines DC-10? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runway inspection (first discussion) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826100625/http://ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1981/A81_150_152.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1981/A81_150_152.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081119154238/http://www.airguideonline.com/airsafety_SSC.htm to http://www.airguideonline.com/airsafety_SSC.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608031912/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012219 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012219
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A runway inspection, scheduled for an hour and a half before the Continental airplane took off, had not been carried out.
:There would have to have been an inspection after the Continental plane took off, to have revealed the lost part. Valetude (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to discuss this exact thing after being reverted for removing it wholesale. I'm so glad that someone else noticed this. I had just removed the part about the inspection for the same reason. An additional person noticed this two years ago (two sections above this one). I think it should be completely removed. -- 143.85.169.19 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong view, as long as consensus is established here. But I'm left wondering why it was included in the original BEA report. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete the sentence - it's not relevant to the accident, and breaks up the narrative. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runway inspection (second discussion) 

message: The article states that "During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, 7 of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic". It then lists nine incidents. Which begs the question, which are the seven serious ones, and why are two minor ones included in the list? 80.2.106.75 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I suspect it's probably down to ease of access to sources. But the full list, and categorisation thereof, is obviously key to resolving that. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here's what I propose to do. The "seven serious incidents" claim is sourced to the Guardian, which defines a serious incident as one in which a fuel tank was punctured. The incidents in Oct 1979 and Feb 1981 do not meet that criterion. The first of those is unsourced, so I have no compunction in deleting it. The second has two sources, so we know it happened, but it doesn't meet the Guardian's definition of serious, so I propose to delete that as well. Any objections? 80.2.106.75 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Concorde's designers had considered tyre failure during the design process which is one of the reasons Concorde's tyres were initially rated to 250 mph, and it was calculated that any damage caused by a tyre bursting would be confined to small punctures of a tank that would not endanger the aircraft, other than in the loss of the fuel itself. After the accident, apart from the other modifications, new tyres were developed with an increased rating to 290 mph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous tyre incidents (second discussion) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106085111/http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/pressrelease16january2002.php to http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/pressrelease16january2002.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What i dislike is the statement that there were no other options than takeoff. It suggests that aborting the takeoff was not an option since there was not enough runway left and the landing gear would have collapsed. Personally i thought this over and over. We all know what happened in the case of takeoff - chances of survival were around 0 percent. Runway 26R has like 1000 meter of meadow after it, then comes another 200 m of aircraft parking space. I think if the takeoff would have been aborted in the last second it would have also lead to a crash, but maybe at least with survivors. I think the structural damage would have been less severe. So i would challenge that sentence " its only option was to take off." We all know that this was not an option.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterKyodai (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and think that sentence should be deleted from the article. It suggests that Captain Marty had the time to weigh up which would be the least bad choice. The paragraph following the "no other option" claim gives the real reason why he continued with the takeoff: i.e. because they had already passed the V1 speed. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As is the case with most airliners, the crew are unable to see the rear of the aircraft from the cockpit and so were reliant on their flight instruments, so it is likely that through most of the incident they were unaware of the seriousness of the situation, and initially thought they had a simple engine fire. It was only the rapidly deteriorating extent of the situation towards the end of the flight that the crew would have known something was seriously wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No other options? (Overshooting the runway) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026081536/http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/htm/f-sc000725a.html to http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/htm/f-sc000725a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106085111/http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/index.php to http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/concorde/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327061301/http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/concorde/index.php to http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/concorde/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This rather long Talk page has comments going back to 2003. It would probably be a good thing if automatic archiving were set up. Does anyone object? DBaK (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I do remember that the tyre manufacturer send two crisis communication teams immediatly after the incident. Sadly I do not remember the company. Who has an idea? 92.117.157.232 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, originally Concorde used two makes of tyre, Dunlop on the UK fleet, and Michelin for the French fleet. IIRC, the later re-designed 'zero growth' ones fitted after the accident were developed by Michelin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyre brand? 

message: Hello. I would like to discuss a potential FA push for the article. Using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (an FA) as a reference, I’m possibly thinking about reorganizing the article in a similar format, first with the flight and crew section, followed by the accident, investigations, final reports and aftermath sections. I’m also thinking about describing the flight background (i.e. crew members, aircraft type, nationalities of the passengers and registration, moving the flight charter from the lead to that particular section, time and date of departure) for the aircraft and crew section. For the accident, we should explain what happened starting with the Concorde tyre hitting the debris, move the time zones to the appropriate section and describe the deaths of those on the ground. We may also need to use parentheses for the NTSB if necessary and add the BEA’s full name. The ultimate goal is to feature it as a TFA on 25 July 2019 (the 19th anniversary of the crash). If there are any further suggestions, please let me know.
Another one of the reasons for this discussion is that my edits, which were in good faith, were unfortunately reverted; as such, I’m taking the bold, revert and discuss route in discussing some of my recent changes to the article and subsequently getting a possible consensus. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your more recent round of changes are much better, added clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few proposals for a possible FA push 

message: 'Tyre' is the correct spelling in this article about a British aircraft accident. Please do not edit it to 'tire'. Thanks 
In what must be the silliest controversy I have ever taken part in on Wikipedia - I made what seemed like a sensible and totally inconsequential edit to a hidden note removing  the words "British aircraft accident" from the above.  The reasons being that this was an Air France plane at a French airport and other than the concorde involved was the product of a joint Anglo/French development some 50 years ago nothing in the article or elsewhere singles out any factor with anything to do with Britain.  If this was a 747 (US built) at Heathrow I'm sure it would be approriate to write Tyre.   This article is already tagged that British English is the appropriate version of English to use and adding something questionable into the hidden note only lessens its impact.  Despite all of this  seems very attached to this piece of fiction maybe he/she can explain their reasoning here.  Andrewgprout (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because I do not like your childish, aggressive tone of voice. DBaK (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Your reply is seriously perplexing and worrysome.  So if I understand you correctly you are refusing to discuss this when it was you who suggested this go to talk.  That is coming across as being extremely immature.  Please answer the question.  How can this be a "British aircraft accident" as is written?- detail obviously you are vigorously supporting.  Andrewgprout (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No discussion ongoing - I have removed the whole hidden note - the article is appropriately tagged and should be sufficient to ensure continued use of British English. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this a "British aircraft accident" 

message: So I found on the French version of the article that captain Christian Marty has his own separate article. I plan to translate it into English, but it says it will overwrite this article as his name is a redirecting link. Currently the translation name is "Christian Marty (Pilot)." Any suggestions? Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on Christian Marty 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christian Goetz. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christian Goetz" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: How come the call sign of this flight wasn’t AFR/Air France 4590 heavy, when Concorde’s MTOW is over 300,000 lbs.  I know that BAW used a special Concorde call sign, but AFAIK AFR never did.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.131.7 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Callsign 

message: see Mike Bannister's book. Concorde was on fire 700m before encountering the metal strip. 18 reliable observers reported this. The strip was found on the right of the runway. The tyre damage on the left side of Concorde. The metal strip did not cause the Concorde fire and subsequent crash. 31.94.0.251 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this thread headed "French Trial"? And does the Banister book need to be added to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Trial