Talk:Star Dust (aircraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Any ideas guys? Probably the solution lies in morse code rather than a textual solution. Anjouli 09:28, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anjouli's theory

stendec in morse is ... / - / . / -. / -.. / . / -.-

Assume there was a bit of drop out and it was really ... / - / .- / .-. / -.. / . / -.- which is stardec, a known morse abreviation for "starting descent".

Of course that does not explain why it was supposedly repeated three times. Anjouli

    • Well after 4 years I'm revising my theory. Stendec is so close to Stardust it seems likely it was just misheard. Sent three times? Was it really, or was that just a bit of story-telling after the fact? Stendec was only an interesting mystery because the plane was missing. If it had landed safely, no one would have cared. Anjouli 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


  • I really doubt we'll ever know. The "on schedule" theory seems odd as well, if the plane flew a shortcut, should it not have arrived early? -- Nils Jeppe 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Collection of Theories

Despite intensive speculation, few plausible explanations of the word "STENDEC" have emerged. In fact the word does not correspond to any known telegraphic code or 'telegraphese' shorthand in use either at the time or now, and experts at the official enquiry failed to make any sense of it. Its meaning still remains a mystery to this day.

  • It is possible that when the "STENDEC" signal was sent, Star Dust had already crashed. It is therefore suggested that the signal was sent by an outside party. It may therefore well be a codeword, used for some completely disconnected purpose. The Santiago Operator maintained that it was repeated twice after a 'not understood' signal from Santiago. "STENDEC" possibly had nothing to do with Star Dust, and was purely a coincidence, according to some peoples' opinion. But, this would also require another coincidence for the outside party's transmitter to be so precisely 'netted' onto Star Dust's frequency that the Santiago Operator would not notice any difference in the pitch, sending style or speed of the morse, to suggest a different hand on the key.
  • As the Santiago operator reported that the message was keyed very fast, a likely explanation is that the operator erred in the spacing of the Morse signals; "STENDEC" with alternate spacing could for example translate into "V END AR".
"V" (or more accurately "VVV") is either a 'testing' signal, or an 'idling' signal, which a station transmits (usually automatically) during periods when it is not handling traffic, to 'hold' the frequency and let other stations know that it is there and listening for any calls. "AR" is the 'end-of-message' code.
"STENDEC" in Morse code is: ... - . -. -.. . -.-.; "V END AR" in Morse code is: ...- / . -. -.. / .- .-. (in the text, a 'space' signifies a pause the length of a 'dit', a 'space-slash-space' a pause the length of a 'dah'). This would mean that "STENDEC" was simply Star Dust notifying the end of Morse transmission, as (having just given an ETA only four minutes away) the crew thought that they were only 12 - 16 miles East of Santiago, and now in range for voice communication. The only problems with this theory are the presence of a 'testing' signal in the middle of a message (which is somewhat unusual) and the code "AR", implying that further transmission would be following (like 'over' as opposed to 'out' in voice communication), thus the phrase "V End AR" is contradictory in itself - the phrase "End VA" ("VA" means 'End of Contact') would still be unusual, but would at least make some sense. The radio operator also insisted the signal was repeated twice. If that actually happened, it would weaken the theory the crew switched to voice communication as someone was clearly listening on the Star Dust frequency.

The 'dit-dah' sequence within "STENDEC" is most likely correct. The Santiago Operator said that he queried it twice, and he described the receiving conditions as 'clear', making it unlikely that dit-dah confusions or omissions occurred. Erroneous lengthening or shortening of pauses within and between letters is more likely than insertion of false extra 'dits' or 'dahs'.

Lycophron's Theory

My theory is that people ought to at least give a passing attempt at looking something up, rather than endlessly speculating about it. Acronym Finder has had an entry on STENDEC for years:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=stendec&Find=find&string=exact

"Severe Turbulence Encountered Now Descending Emergency Crash-Landing (WWII Morse code)"

A contributor to the PBS/Nova site referenced at the bottom of the article elaborates on the meaning and usage (the two sources are independent of each other, by the way):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/sten_010208.html

And the online version of the Guardian comes up with the same definition:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,787181,00.html

At the very least, the sentence in the original article about how STENDEC corresponds to no known telegraph code should be scrapped (it assets a negative in any event).

Lycophron

Like I say below, 'STENDEC' is totally meaningless. It is meaningless now, and it was meaningless then, otherwise the enquiry at the time would simply have said "Oh, it's one of those Stendecs again". 'Severe turbulence encountered....' is the result of modern-day backronym inventing, like 'Posh', 'Golf', 'Pommie', 'Chav' etc...none of which were originally acronyms. The thought that anybody would pre-arrange a code meaning 'Severe Turbulence Encountered Now Descending Emergency Crash Landing' is ludicrous, as you would need literally hundreds of similar acronyms to describe any eventuallity. You would need acronyms for 'Engine Failure Making Forced Landing Nearest Available Aerodrome', 'Medical Emergency On Board Have Doctor Standing By' and 'Icing Causing Loss of Control Emergency Descent to Warmer Air' etc...none of which ever existed. Any distress call would have been preceded then (as now) by the well-known 'SOS', which would certainly have made the Santiago op's ears prick up, as well as anybody else who was listening. The morse code as used to this day has hardly changed at all since 'Titanic' sank, never mind WW2. The only acronyms in general use were, and are, the three-letter 'Q' codes, which will be familiar to CB enthusiasts etc, and a separate set of similar 'Z' codes used by the military to suit their different needs. The only 'shorthand' ever used was (fascinatingly) very similar to the language of shortened words used by today's youngsters when texting each other on cellphones. I am the nearest thing that you will find to a morse 'boffin' in 2006, there aren't that many of us left, but I am afraid that the answer (if there is one) is not to be found in morse code. The plane was off-course, descending through cloud, and suddenly crashed into the side of a mountain killing all on board instantly. When the wreck was found, that was the end of the mystery.ChrisRed 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisRed

1) I am not able to find a source I consider reliable enough to support my meaning of STENDEC and have deleted my paragraph. 2) One should avoid posting pet theories on Wikipedia, so I will retract mine. 3) In attempting to establish a negative ("'STENDEC' is totally meaningless"), which is a problematic enterprise to begin with, you make two assertions which, if seemingly plausible, are still conjectural. It is entirely possible, if unlikely, for a board of inquiry to miss something. Also, a vocubulary of acronyms may contain complex oddities with no requirement that all possible eventualities be dealt with (e.g., a striking feature of medical vocabularies is how many holes they have -- but such things grow organically, on an "as needed" basis). 4) Serves me right for posting to Wikipedia in the first place. ;)

Lycophron

Don't take it personally like that. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. Don't forget that my theory is just a theory like any other. It sounds great to me, but it might be a right load of old bollox, which is why I put it on the 'Talk' page rather than in the 'encyclopedia' :-).ChrisRed 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisRed

Right on all points (including the first). The mystery has been solved, as you point out, and the STENDEC issue is moot, anyway. Cheers.

Lycophron


Favorite theory

After reading through the large number of reader's theories on PBS's Nova website, I see that the most common was mentioned four times: STENDEC = Starting En-Route Descent. One of the contributors insisted that it was a standard BRITISH morse-code call from that period. --Farry 18:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I presume it also says that POSH means 'Port Out Starboard Home'; CHAV means 'Council Housed and Vicious', and GOLF means 'Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden'. Good old PBS Nova. It must be true then. So the message means "I am at 24000 feet and I am only now starting my en-route descent. I will be with you in four minutes". Go on...fire up MS Flight Simulator and see what a 6000 feet per minute descent looks like. (That's 100 feet per second. At 200kt it is a 1:3 / 33% nosedive - i.e. sooner you than me! :-) As the plane hit the mountain at around 15,500 feet, it must have already been descending for some considerable time before the message was sent. "One of the contributors" may insist that these were commonly used acronyms, but I actually KNOW that they were not. If you want to see my British Radiocommunications Agency Class 'A' Radio Operator's Licence, then I will put an image of it up here if asked. (de G4PDJ) ChrisRed 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The STENDEC 'Mystery'

Yes, we will never know for sure, but as a former Royal Navy radio operator and radio ham for 24 years, I don't really see what the big mystery is about 'STENDEC'. There is nothing mysterious about it at all.
'STENDEC' in telegraphic terms is totally meaningless. So it's either a mis-send or a mis-read.
'STR' (... - .-.) = the callsign for 'Santiago Radio',
Then 'DE' (-.. .) which has always been everyday 'telegraphese' shorthand for 'from'. No telegraphist worldwide would ever send 'FROM', always 'DE' (a throwback to the early days when French was the international radio language) also 'DE' (-.. .) is much quicker to send than 'FROM' (..-. .-. --- --). If any operator sent 'FROM' to me instead of 'DE', I would find that very strange.
'C' (-.-.) is the first letter of the flight number (CS59) (Interrupted presumably by the impact).
By the way, we can dismiss here and now any fanciful 'back-invented' or silly 'backronym' solution which includes the word 'Stardust'. The Santiago operator would only be aware of the flight number, he would probably not even be aware of the aircraft's type - let alone any company 'pet name' that might happen to be painted on its nose.
As the aircraft just suddenly flew into an unseen near-vertical wall of snow, it is unlikely that the call was anything at all to do with the crash, but was instead a mundane bit of radio procedure that was terminated by the sudden impact. (The Radio Operator would be seated well-back in the cockpit, in what we would nowadays think of as the Flight Engineer's position. He would probably only hear a terrified 'shout' from the pilots, and there would just be no time to send anything).
Many ex-military operators do have very quirky-sounding 'fists', (take it from me :-) and if the aircraft was bouncing around as it descended through swirling mountain cloud, this could have made Dennis Harmer's morse even more 'interesting'.
Any radio ham will tell you that 'R' (.-.) is still sent rather sloppily as 'EN' (. -.) literally thousands of times a day (especially when sent on its own, meaning 'Received' - it's a bit of an 'in-joke').
('R' corresponds to the well-known 'Roger' on voice - a throwback to the old 'Able-Baker-Charlie-Dog' etc. phonetic alphabet...we are talking about British ex-RAF flight-crew in the the 1940's after all).


So the probable answer is actually 'boring-but-true'. It's just the two callsigns tagged onto the end of the message as required by everyday normal radio procedure, still used to this day by thousands of people on the Ham bands. i.e. ...(Message).."ETA SANTIAGO 17.45.. (Callsigns) ..STR DE C(Impact)..............", or if you send (or copy) just one letter badly "17.45 STEN DE C(Impact).....".


In the absence of an inconvenient lump of the Andes, the message was probably going to continue something like 'STR DE CS59 AR ('end of message') most likely followed by 'VA' ('end of contact') or 'QSY' 'I am re-tuning (to the control tower's voice frequency').
The only 'mystery' is: Why did the operator at Santiago insist that he queried the word 'Stendec' twice, when the uncompleted signal could only possibly have been sent once?. I suggest that we have all been scratching our heads for so long because he thought it was more than his job was worth to stand in front of an enquiry and admit to his (military) superiors that he could possibly have mis-read even one letter. He did 'prepare his defence' by saying that the signal was sent very quickly. Perhaps Harmer was just a bit too quick for the Santiago op.
To be fair to the Santiago operator, I would add that 100% solid perfect copy of morse is rare. I have been on the air for decades, and I still miss the odd letter - an experienced operator's brain will normally just 'back-fill' the missing character subconsciously when it has heard the remainder of the word. The Santiago op had no idea that he was listening to anything significant. The plane had reported no 'peril' or anything to lead him to believe that this would turn out to be the historically-significant last transmission of a doomed flight. It was just 'a normal day at the office' until the moment the plane's transmitter suddenly fell silent. That said, I believe that if any operator fails to recognise his own callsign - no matter how badly sent - this must point a serious finger of doubt at his ability at the time. I cannot say too much more, because the gentleman might, of course, still be alive.
Some additional info...(According to www.worldaerodata.com) Santiago Los Cerrillos's VOR beacon still to this day sends its identity in morse as 'STI'. Modern-day callsigns for the old Los Cerrillos (it's closing soon, by the way) airport are all in the 'SCTI' series, but these are a more recent development. It would be great if some old timer could produce an old navchart, but logic suggests 'STR'-'Radio'; 'STT'-'Tower'; 'STG'-'Ground' etc. Morse buffs will have already spotted that you 'can' make a very drunken-sounding 'STEND' out of the chopped-up bits of 'SCTI', but that would be the morse of a barely-conscious man, and (although Tupungato is a formidable-looking mountain) [1] it just isn't high enough for oxygen deficiency to be a factor. ChrisRed 08:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'll delete a few of the more fanciful suggestions from the 'STENDEC' section, but will not add any reference to the above myself (it is, after all, just another theory). I will leave that to somebody else. I want to delete the last three. 1. 'SKED' is not applicable here, a 'Sked' is a pre-arranged time and frequency for a radio contact. 2. 'STarting ENroute DesCent....' (What? 23000 feet in four minutes?) and 3. 'Severe Turbulence Encountered....' (both products of a boring Sunday's backronym-inventing). ChrisRed 11:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, someone should add some morse code solutions to STENDEC, since they are the most probable solutions to the STENDEC mystery. As of this post, the only solutions recorded are alphabet based ones. Bradkoch2007 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think it's best if we just mention the puzzle and leave it there. Let's be honest - none of us were there, and we will never conclusively 'solve' it in a million years. Everybody has their own pet theory (including me, above) but as we don't have the benefit of modern cockpit recordings or 'black box' evidence, nobody is ever going to produce the one 'master' theory that is going to disprove all the others. All we know now that we didn't know then is a) The plane hit Tupungato, and b) It wasn't carted-off by little green men. :-) ChrisRed 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STENDEC = STR DEC?

The German Wikipedia entry very nicely explains that "STENDEC" could have been a misheard message, "STR DEC". Apparently, the morse code sequence would be identical, except for the letter-break spacing being placed differently. It would mean "Starting Descent", a message in line with the rest of the information given in the radio traffic, and it could be repeated two times identically (ie, not a glitch in the transmission or a temporary blackout of the operator required). So, all in all, it appears to be a concise and valid explanation.

OTOH, I'm not enough of an expert in the field of airflight or morse. Would anybody more knowledgable want to investigate? (If there's a need for German/English translations, I'm happy to help.) --Syzygy 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm an expert in morse, but not an expert in aviation. I've given up being the resident 'Snopes' on this article, because every time I 'put it to bed' morse-wise, somebody else comes along with another nugget of 'well known 1940's radio procedure' that nobody in the radio community has ever even heard of :-) Like I said...'STR (oops) DE C...(Smash!) ChrisRed 07:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section on STENDEC to remove the detailled and apparently quite pointless discussions about acronyms or misreads. Please, check it out and tell me what you think! --Syzygy (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could copy the morse codes from Wikipedia German. It looks nice and everyone can make up his/her own mind.
I too find the STR DEC theory most convincing, it is the only thing that makes sense. When Stardust broke the clouds, they were seemingly unaware of the danger. After that everything must have happened too fast to get off an SOS. 88.217.66.243 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STENDEC as an Anagram

Has anyone else noticed that "STENDEC" is an anagram of "DESCENT"? I'm just putting it out there.

John D. Coughlan

An interesting coincidence, but nothing more. It's not really possible to *accidentally* scramble a word around in Morse. Admiral Rupert 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

- The message was sent two times, so maybe the pilot was trying to say DESCENT DESCENT? He started keying really rapidly and somehow managed to miss the first few letters and mixed them up.. twice. STEN_DECSTEN_DEC.. I don't think so, because it's not plausible to make the same error twice, or even put a T before E and N. But hey, just a thought. I think ChrisRed's theory is the most convincing one. HeadCheese 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But don't forget it's only a theory, just like all the others. My theory is physically plausible, but so are others, so don't start spreading it around as a fact. Somebody was telling little porkies, and we don't have a recording to analyse, so really we will never know for sure. (ChrisRed - Who's Keyboard tilde has gone missing...now there's a mystery!)

[edit] STENDEC: Four relevant corroborative details for Brian's theory

(I passed my Morse test for the Australian Ham licence in 1961, callsign VK2AUA for a few years thereafter.) By far the most plausible solution I've seen is the one posted by Brian (second message) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/sten_010202.html, which he suggested was ETA SANTIAGO 1745 ST ENDAR with ST meaning "Standard Time" and AR meaning End Communication. However it was missing the following four quite relevant corroborative details that I think tighten up his argument considerably.

1. Harmer's prior Andean experience. According to the official report at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/sten_report3.html Harmer had had his P.M.G. (Post Master General, i.e. civilian) licence for only nine months, but had the benefit of six previous trans-Andean crossings so he was not unfamiliar with the routine in Santiago. Miscommunications with Chilean operators on previous occasions may have prompted him to creatively vary his routine by way of clarification (item 3).

2. EC = + = AR. The End Communication "procode" or logging abbreviation is + ("cross") = •▬•▬• . It is one of seven punctuation and procode codes, out of 24 listed in the 1986 ARRL Handbook, that are needed to satisfy FCC testing requirements. It is formed by running together either AR = •▬ / •▬• or EC = • / ▬•▬• , is sometimes written AR with a bar over it, and is sometimes transmitted as AR or EC instead of + (two letters instead of one procode). An operator accustomed to the AR form but not to + or EC might hear + as EC, or Harmer might have sent EC.

3. Why both END and +? The same failure by the Chilean operator to recognize EC as a terminator on this occasion may have happened to Harmer on some of his previous flights into Santiago (see 1 above), possibly even with the same operator, prompting him to add END creatively as clarifying backup this time.

4. ST = CLT != CLST. See http://www.horaoficial.cl/cambio.htm for a table of official Chilean time since 1900, and http://www.statoids.com/tcl.html for historical information on names of Chilean time zones. There are two important takeaways here.

(a) Chile adopted daylight savings time in 1927, dropped it in 1932, and (except for three oddball two-month deviations) did not resume it until 1968. In 1947 "standard time" had no meaning to a Chilean operator.
(b) The names if any of the time zones used during 1927-1932 in Chile would most likely have been CLT and CLST, the latter denoting summer time (what we call daylight savings time).

So ST would make no sense in Chile in August 1947 for three reasons:

(i) standard time had not been a concept in Chile since 1932;
(ii) it would have been read as "Summer Time" which is wasn't in August; and
(iii) CL is missing.

Conclusion Harmer transmitted the Star Dust's ETA and nothing else, in the format "ETASANTIAGO1745STEND+", with unknown spacing (we don't know which spaces he provided and which were interpolated by the receiving operator). Harmer likely intended ST to mean Standard Time, which the operator failed to recognize as qualifying the time (detail 4). Harmer may have spaced + as any of +, AR, or EC, which the Chilean read as EC but failed to recognize as a terminator because he'd only been taught + and/or AR (detail 2). Harmer may well have run into that problem on some of his six previous trans-Andean crossings (detail 1) and creatively added END by way of clarification (detail 3). When asked (twice) to say again, Harmer did so exactly the same way each time, and each time it sounded exactly the same to the Chilean operator. --Vaughan Pratt 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if these theories have merit, they're unsuitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia proper, since they constitute original research. Further, given how much time has passed and how many people fluent in Morse code and familiar with the standards of the day have looked into this and managed to come up empty, the null hypothesis seems to me that this problem is unsolveable. Xihr 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, all the theories currently appearing in the article constitute original research and should be deleted--for one thing they're a heck of a lot less convincing than Brian's theory from February 2001 which for some reason isn't included -- he (same Brian? - surname unknown) reiterated it 19 months later at http://www.network54.com/Forum/213163/thread/1031108758/ . These Talk pages are a fine place for such discussions even if they don't produce material fit for the article proper. Incidentally your argument that the problem is unsolvable merely because lots of experts have looked at it would prove that Fermat's Last Theorem and the Four Colour Problem are unsolveable. Not that I'm claiming any relevant expertise myself other than having passed my code test 46 years ago and the willingness to question the authority of my betters. --Vaughan Pratt 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a tremendous difference between trying to find a proof for a mathematical theorem which may or may not exist, and trying to decipher a short, confusing message that has been scrutinized many, many times. There's only so many valid abbreviations, misinterpretations of Morse code, and reinterprations of what might have been meant in such a message, whereas there are literally an infinite number of ways of approaching a mathematical proof. Xihr 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What does mathematics have to do with this? You're assuming that all of the finitely many relevant facts and arguments have by now been exhausted. Has any previous explanation taken into account Harmer's previous trans-Andean experience, suggesting that he added END because of previous mishaps in Santiago with +/AR/EC the same as the one that seems to have happened again on this occasion, or pointed out that "Standard Time" would be meaningless to a 1947 Chilean operator, or that "ST" would in any event mean "Summer Time" and not "Standard Time". This is all new stuff. The fact that EC is sometimes used (in fact even taught) instead of + or AR was pointed out by one person a few years ago, so that's not completely new but no one seems to have noticed it. If one couldn't do research of this kind archaeologists would be out of a job. --Vaughan Pratt 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, ignore my first sentence about mathematics there, I see your point. The rest is fine. --Vaughan Pratt 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to mention one other feature of Brian's solution that differentiates it from all solutions postulating errors: it explains why STENDEC would have been heard loud and clear all three times. Most of the non-error-based theories that accepted STENDEC proposed meanings for it as a single entity, none of which are (in my view) remotely as plausible as the parsing ST END EC with ST belonging to 1745. --Vaughan Pratt 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of Tyres and Tires

The rest of the English-speaking world accepts that Americans spell some words differently to the rest of us. It doesn't really matter, we can still understand you, and although the result can often appear 'juvenile' to us, we don't let it get on our nerves. BUT...when an American comes along and CORRECTS standard English spelling into American spelling (as though it is us who can't spell) then that is a different thing altogether. Sorry, but the language is not called 'American'. This was a British aircraft, with no Americans on board, which was travelling with two 'L's until it crashed into a lump of Argentina. We don't need English lessons from you... ChrisRed 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just note that many of us Americans have no clue that Brits spell things differently. It very well could be some perfectly amiable chap who just thought that somebody had made a spelling mistake and was taking the opportunity to fix it. WP:AGF and all that. A mild pointer to the Wikipedia (or should I say Wikipædia?) guidelines on the subject in question is all that's really needed. Cheers. 70.17.196.162 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I hate to bring this up given that a fellow countryman (the CEO of BSAA) was at the root of the problem, but there is something disturbingly non-NPOV about the article's glowing endorsement of the Star Dust crew:

"The flight crew of the aircraft were highly experienced Royal Air Force veterans of World War II, with hundreds of flying-hours' experience in both war and peace; the captain was also an experienced navigator. The aircraft was less than two years old."

This does not gibe with http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=367622002

"The loss of the Star Dust, on the final leg of a three-and-a-half day journey from London to Santiago, finally forced the ministry to study the company’s record in detail. Statisticians compared BSAA to the other British airlines. BOAC had, by then, lost one passenger for every 18,900 flown. BEA had carried 342,502 and suffered no losses at all. BSAA had lost one passenger for every 385 flown. It is the equivalent of one person on every full Boeing 747."

Would you fly on a 747 if you knew that every flight was going to claim a passenger?

The article continues,

"Today Don Mackintosh says most of the crew, having come from wartime experiences, accepted the losses as merely part of the job. 'Looking back I can see now that our mindset was very similar to that in the war,' he says. Planes flew, some of them crashed and some people died. At BSAA it was just business as usual: there were to be another three crashes, claiming 51 lives, before Bennett was given his marching orders and, in 1949, BSAA was finally merged into BOAC."

The problem with the Wikipedia article is its implication that with such a qualified crew the passengers were in good hands. What the statistics show is that those very qualifications had put BSAA passengers at 50 times the risk of BOAC passengers and far more compared to BEA passengers. --Vaughan Pratt 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that even without the evidence you've suggested, the article could use some WP:NPOV massaging. Xihr 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't it say (airplane) to stay with the US dialect that is used around Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.253.47 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect- see WP:ENGVAR. Jooler (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're probably right. I don't know the history of the article enough to know why it's spelled aeroplane. Xihr (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally Wikipedia attempts to accomodate both American and British spelling variations - the most common rule I've seen is that the original editor sets the tone. So if this article was originally written with British spelling, then it should stay that way.
That being said, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, this could be seen as an opportunity for commonality, and the title could be changed to "Star Dust (aircraft)".
On the other hand, as ChrisRed pointed out above (though I wish he could have done so in a more diplomatic manner), this was a British aircraft with British crew & many British passengers, with no ties to the US in any way, which could make this article fall under the Wikipedia Manual of Style's "Strong national ties to a topic" category.
I personally don't care either way...I was able to understand the article just fine and get the information I was looking for with no problems. So rather than initiating a ton of drawn-out discussion or inadvertently causing an international incident, I vote for leaving it as-is. -Rhrad (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I started the article (although it was originally called "Stendec") and I'm British, for what that's worth. I could live with "Star Dust (aircraft)". It's a fine title. Anjouli (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And I've moved it! Well, they say "be bold". Anjouli (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to be bolder still and move Kaleva (airplane) and Looking Glass (airplane) and Ehécatl (airplane) and any other similarly titled article. I don't believe there was anything wrong with this article being at Star Dust (aeroplane) and there was no need to move it. Ref WP:ENGVAR - Retaining the existing variety If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. Jooler (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)