Talk:Air France Flight 4590
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event mentioned in this article is a July 25 selected anniversary
Much of the text was moved from the Concorde article. WhisperToMe 17:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just noticed that this contradicts the Concorde article on the number of deaths on the ground. This article says 4 people on the ground were killed, Concorde says 5. Fabiform 14:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- 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)
Contents |
[edit] Picture incorrect?
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)
- 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)
-
- Yes, you're right! I looked at [1] 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)
[edit] Spelling
why do you insist that the spelling is "tyre" instead of "tire"? Just to let you know, "tire" is the correct spelling in Modern Standard English, while "Tyre" is a city is southern Lebanon. I don't see why you inserted a request for people to not correct you on your orthographic error, as it degrades the quality of the article.--Retroandi 14:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have replied on your talk page, but basically the policy you are not 'getting' here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:mos#National_varieties_of_English
- HTH --Guinnog 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the clarification
While I appreciate your inclusion of a source to validate the use of "tyre" in your article, it would lend more weight if you reference something other than a Wikipedia article, such as the Oxford English Dictionary [2]. Also, perhaps we should both contact Wikipedia for their orthographical rules concerning articles in English; no doubt there have been arguements similar to ours with regards to other words. Retroandi 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hehehehe...this is just the tip of the iceburg. Orange (colour) has been the site of a contentious color/colour war; flavor/flavour over at potato chips; gasoline/petrol over at gasoline; all documented at WP:LAME. Hbdragon88 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Length of metal wrong?
it was said in "Seconds from Disaster" that the shard of metal was exactally 42cm long, whereas the article says about 50, i'm not editing i right away because i'm not sure if i am correct or not as the metal was curved...
I don't know about the length but the width is given as 30 mm. Why different dimension? 3 cm by 50 cm is easy to visualize than giving one parameter in mm. I'm changing the width to 3 cm. Correct me if I'm wrong. Saurabh Sardeshpande 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Continental's statement about the strip's legality
I inserted [citation needed] and after a while removed the following unsourced statement:
However, Continental Airlines maintains that FAA regulations do allow the use of the titanium strip[citation needed] and added that this metal was more wear-resistant than the original part.[citation needed]
If anyone has a valid reference, please supply it and re-insert. Thanks, Crum375 13:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well done for this. --Guinnog 20:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is very good to see videos of many of the incidents that Wikipedia refers to, and 99% of the time YouTube is the place to see them. Surely the onus is on YouTube users to verify copyright, not on those who link to it? If for some silly legal reason that is not the case, could we say, for example, "to see a film of this, put 'concorde' and 'crash' into YouTube's search engine"? That definitively puts the onus on the stuffed shirts to prove there aren't non-copyrighted clips of the crash. - AG, Stockport, UK.
[edit] Alternative Theories; Chirac - Bush?
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)jimbomu
[edit] Poorly sourced
I removed the following poorly sourced or unsourced section (mentioning unnamed sources in the only reference provided):
Alternative Theories: British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off-course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had veered very close to a Boeing 747 known to be carrying French President Jacques Chirac. They argued that the Concorde was in trouble before takeoff, as it was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft center of gravity and taking off downwind. Moreover, it was missing the crucial spacer from the left main landing-gear beam that would have made for a snug-fitting pivot. This compromised the alignment of the landing gear and the wobbling beam and gears allowing three degrees of movement possible in any direction. The uneven load on the left leg’s three remaining tires skewed the landing gear disastrously, with the scuff marks of four tires on the runway showing that the plane was skidding out of control. These investigators were frustrated by the lack of cooperation from French authorities, including an unwillingness to share data and the immediate resurfacing of Concorde's takeoff runway after the crash. They alleged that the BEA was determined to place the sole blame of the accident on the titanium strip to show that Concorde itself was not at fault. The BEA's interim report maintained that the leftward yaw was caused not by incorrectly assembled landing gear but by loss of thrust from the number 1 and 2 engines. Data from the Flight Data Recorder Black Box indicates that the aircraft was centred on the runway and accelerating normally up until the point where the tyre burst occurred. The instantaneous wind speed at the closest anemometer to the take-off point was recorded as zero knots.[3]
I suggest that we either find better named sources for this, or keep it out, per our strict sourcing rules required when living people are involved. Crum375 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The British newspaper The Observer commissioned its own investigation into the accident that was highly skeptical of the official report, and this is evidently what is being referred to here. The gist of the report was that the plane was far over MTOW, its load was dangerously rear-heavy, and there was a spacer missing from its left wheelcarriage, all of which caused it to remain on the runway for too long without reaching the minimum rotate speed, while veering too far to the left; only due to these problems, which could have caused the catastrophe by themselves, did it strike the titanium strip from the DC-10, which was located much further down the runway than the Concorde usually travels during takeoff. It's at [4]. An article from Air Safety Week corroborates some of these points [5]. Here's another article, though from a personal website, that makes the point about the spacer: [6].
- The Observer theory deserves mention in the article; it's certainly noteworthy and reasonably compelling. I may re-add this section with better sourcing and phrasing, unless someone else would prefer to. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
