Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 5 October 2011

Archives

Archive 1 - Sept 2007-Feb 2008 Archive 2 - Feb 2008-July 2008 Archive 3 - July 2008-October 2008 Archive 4 - October 2008-February 2009 Archive 5 - February 2009-September 2009 Archive 6 - September 2009-December 2009 Archive 7 - December 2009-June 2010 Archive 8 - June 2010-December 2010 Archive 9 - December 2010 - February 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Happy New year

I'd like to wish you and your family a Happy New Year. I'm sorry for allowing my actions to escalte our disagreements. I do hope you stay with WP for a long time. - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft engine terminology stubs

Template:Sfdnotify1

One less Moth

I'm glad to see your recent activity proves you were not the pilot of the Tiger Moth which crashed two days ago in Dorset. Rotten luck for the two guys in the kite, which was seen doing aerobatics prior to augering in. A morbid subject, and the missus is worried I still want to take a ride. How is the airworthiness of your Moth? Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a very nasty one that, plenty of theories going around but I am fairly sure I know what happened. Our Moth is about two weeks away from flying again (full flight test) and there may be a delay of a further two weeks for paperwork to come back from the CAA after that (grounded in the meantime but I'm not certain about that as rules have changed!). I'm doing an hour in a Piper J-4 tomorrow to get my eye back in. Keep in touch. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Stay safe! I'm staying in Cambridge until the 22nd so I will miss seeing your bird fly. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it just doesn't work out, shame. I'm at Cranfield Airport this Thursday, you could help me clean some more oil off! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As attractive as oily rags can be, Thursday is the one day during my brief stay in the area that the RAF Radar Museum will be open to visitors. Me and missus were thinking of heading out to rent bikes in Hoveton and ride around The Broads a bit, making sure to stop at the museum. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope the sun shines for you guys, been pretty chilly lately with an unusual cold westerly wind that's been blowing for a month now. I always get lost flying over the Broads, flat and featureless but the North Sea coast is the clue to turn round!. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Decalage

Morning Nimbus. You may still watching this page, but since the discussion faded about 2 years ago I thought I'd let you know that I have a definition from the OED which citeably answers the question. I've also proposed a tighter definition - see what you think at Talk:decalage.TSRL (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Morning! Yes, I just replied there, I read it last night but was too tired to think! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP Aircraft in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Aircraft for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, and a question for you

Greetings Nimbus. I have continued to fine tune my tabs, and am now filling in the pages. Thanks for this wonderful tool! I have not had a chance to look at your 'boiler plates' yet, but I will do so very soon.

My question is this: How do I make a template link for my page that does not display the actual template? I am trying to add in the template name surrounded by two curly braces, but that only shows the template format.

Buster40004 (Terry) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

Just use the name for it like Template:Lockheed aircraft or pipe the link like this Lockheed aircraft (]). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Or...if you want to stick with the curly bracket format like this {{British Aviation Museums}} just insert 'tl|' in front of the title like this {{tl|British Aviation Museums}}. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I discovered the

<nowiki>

tag in your above note to me. What does that do?

Buster40004 Talk 04:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It stops the link working and allows the code to be seen without going into edit mode. Lots more at Help:Wiki markup! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! So much help available, but so hard to find it on your own. I thing we need a list of what is available to help editors - one that lists all of the tags, templates and help sections - all in one easy to find place...

Buster40004 Talk 14:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, try Misplaced Pages:Cheatsheet, it has some useful links at the bottom as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Organizing and centralization of lists

Greetings Nimbus,

I have been working on a consolidated list of the various models of Japanese engines. There is a list for Army engines, not labeled as such, and a list of Navy engines, that is labeled accordingly. I have combined them at this page. I have started to linkify the list, starting at the top.

Does the engine project have someone working on something like this? Or, is it a no or low priority item? Is there a standardized method of labeling engines? Something like Manufacturer, model, name, horsepower ? I see very little consistency in existing pages.

I know there is a naming convention for articles and there is a template for the various info and navigation boxes. How does that fit in with articles that exist, but are not formatted accordingly?

Lots of questions tonight - sorry for being a burden, but I am trying my best.

Buster40004 Talk 07:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, lots of questions there! I'll try to answer them.

• Aero engine article naming convention is explained at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Naming. They should be generally consistent within a manufacturer or nationality, let me know if you think something looks odd but generally by now someone would have mentioned it on the article talk page.

• Engine labelling. I think you mean categorisation which groups related articles together across Misplaced Pages. Aero engine categorisation is explained at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Categories, click all the 'crosses' to see the categories that are available. Aero engines are generally categorised by type, era (decade in which it first ran) and manufacturer, there are some variations but most of the articles are like this. Click on the categories at the bottom of any aero engine article to see the other engines in that group. Dividing engines by army or navy use would probably be deemed over categorisation and is why these categories don't exist.

• The other way of grouping aero engines is in a list which you seem to be working towards. Please be aware that there is a master list of aircraft engines which should contain all of them. Creating new-sub lists from this list is known as content forking (it's adding nothing new and actually duplicating entries) or listcruft. Fourteen aero engine lists were redirected last year to the main list after discussion with other aero engine editors.

Hope that helps. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yes, it did help. I read through the fork issue, and now I think I am going on a different tangent. My plan is to let the individual engine family page list the subsequent models of the generic type, eliminating hundreds, if not thousands of links.

As an example, all of the Wright R-1820 based engines would be listed on the R-1830 page. with each one giving what makes different from the others. This engine has both military and civil applications, including WWII tanks. Take a look at the top of my sandbox page and see what I am thinking about for the master list.

Second topic- I have a complete page here on my computer that combines several Japanese engine designation systems into a clear and easy to understand. Some Japanese engines have multiple designations - manufacturer model, civil model, development model, army model with "Type + year", navy system with a model name, and the late-war "unified" naming system. Some of the engines will be duplicated on a list if all of the used were compiled into one list. I am thinking about a table with eows of engines and columns with each naming method to identify all of the designations for each engine.

There is a lot of misinformation published here and on many other websites, some of which are used as ab RS here with a circular reference. As an example, I sent an inquiry to the NASM here in Washington DC about the use of a "J9Y" as the designation for the Nakajima Kikka. His reply was that J9Y is inaccurate as the Y indicates the manufacturer as Yokosuka. He said that as far as he knew, the only designation was Kikka.

Buster40004 Talk 07:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wotcha Gary! Hope y'all don't mind me butting in here Terry – nothing particular to do this afternoon so I've been stooging around WP to pass the time and thought I'd drop by and say hello. Trust me, you couldn't have chosen a better editor than Nimbus as a mentor or to collaborate with in your endeavours here, and I hope you find the whole experience is a rewarding one for you!

Greetings Red Sunset. Thank you for your encouragement.

Buster40004 Talk 18:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gary; still working hard I see, always loads to do as usual (it's a great life if you don't weaken!). A few unfamiliar names wafting around amongst the regulars I notice, and sadly still some I'd gladly shoot on sight but hey, that's life!!! All the best chum! --Red Sunset 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers RS, I'm always busy as you know but I like to find a little time to plod along on here, great to hear from you (we must do another FAC sometime!), cheers.

Terry, there are several ways of skinning a cat! Although forked content lists are discouraged (often deleted) you could easily create an article on Japanese aero engine designation system (or a similar title) as long as it is encyclopaedic, a notable subject and is well referenced using reliable sources. You mention long links in lists, I think you are referring to the many variants of engine types, in the few lists that we have just the main type (article name) is listed, the variants are covered in a section of their own article. Even then we don't always list all of them (although many of us would like to!!).

On sourcing, if there is misinformation in a Misplaced Pages article then it probably came from an unreliable source (see WP:RS again for what is a reliable source), worse it could have been added by an editor using their own memory or conjecture, that is known as original research and is not allowed. Sometimes even reliable sources get it wrong (or are slightly off the real facts), the policy here is verifiability over truth, strange perhaps but that is how WP works.

Just in case you didn't know we can't use another WP article to reference another one (but you will see it happening!!). A lot of policy/guideline links to visit there but it's better that you don't fall down a mineshaft at an early stage!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the Ha-201 page

I agree with your evaluation on that article's talk page. I am merging it back into the Ha-40 article.

Buster40004 Talk 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you did not have to delete it though, could just have redirected it (no need to involve any admin work this way). Is a redirect in place for the Ha-201? If not I can create one and explain how I did it. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I re-created the Kawasaki Ha-201 page (I got a message that it had previously been deleted, which is normal), I then added the wiki mark up code #REDIRECT ]. The #REDIRECT is telling the page to refer to another one, I wanted it to go to the Kawasaki Ha-40 page so I added that as the page to be directed to. I added '#Variants' at the end, this makes the link go directly to the relevant article section (clever stuff this wiki!), without that the reader might wonder why they have been sent to an apparently unrelated article. To see the actual redirect page click on the link under the article name at the top of the page (it will say 'redirected from). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool! It uses heading levels as if they are "named anchors" in HTML. I see a lot of hidden power with the wiki markup, and that is a close cousin to HTML. Thanks for today's lesson.

Buster40004 Talk 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Franklin O-335

Evening Nimbus227. Got a problem with an edit you made to this article, way back in Jan 09 when you also added an info box. I think you changed 6A4 to 6AC. According to Jack Erickson's compilation of manufacturer's designations vs. capacity at http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/Franklin1.html, all 6A4 engines were O-335s though not all O-335s were 6A4s; but not all 6AC engines were O-335, spanning O-265 to O-425. Sorry to be an anorak! There are some associated issues with the Navbox and at least one redirect. We could revert to Rlandman's 6A4 or, better, extend the O-335 list (since that's its name) to include more of the Franklin designations of that capacity. Perhaps we need to decide if the title uses manufacturer's name or the engine size (US military: do they get an O-xyz if the US military did not use them?). At the moment we inconsistently have Franklin 4AC and Franklin O-335. Are there general rules/standard practices for, e.g. Lycomings and Continentals? I'm off my normal patch here.TSRL (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It came from Gunston. Looking at that source again (and Jane's) Franklin apparently designated the four cylinder engines '4AC' with the capacities in cubic inches afterwards, 4AC-176 and 4AC-199 are from Jane's 1945, and 4AC-150 from Gunston (the 150 was their first engine according to him). Jane's list two six cylinder types, the 6AC-298 and 6AC-405, Gunston lists a 6ACV 405 ('V' for vertical helicopter installation), the '335 Vertical' (of 335 cu in), a '225' four cylinder engine and the largest six-cylinder unit described as the '425'. Later types listed are 235 (four cylinder) and a 350 six cylinder. There's no mention of 'O-335' in either reference but the 335 would most likely been called that in military service (Lycoming have always used the 'O' designation military or not AFAIK, Continental appear to have had their own designations initially then started using 'O-...' like Lycoming at some point).

I can understand why the article was moved (but not why it was reverted) because there are at least four sizes of six cylinder engines but only one 'O-335' and 'Franklin 6AC' would align with the Franklin 4AC. The two refs I have say '4AC' and '6AC', there might be a better reliable source than Jane's or Gunston out there but per WP:VERIFY we wouldn't necessarily need to look for it. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Would have to run Jack Erikson's list through WT:RS to see what the regulars there think, it looks very good but is also very similar to Joe Baugher's site, which has been discounted, via discussion at the F-4 Phantom Featured Article Review, as not being a reliable source (because he has no works published in the field I believe). I'm pretty sure it would not be admissible at an FAC review, the first question they ask is 'what makes this a reliable source'? Then realisation sets in (I've been had three times with this trap)!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Engine refs

I've been spending some time putting in citations and, where they are not in any source I have putting in "citation needed". Petebutt has been systematically removing these, I think on the basis that blue links don't need cns, though (as ever) he does not ask or explain! Actually I need to look closer as it seems almost all the earlier ones have gone, red or blue cns: I'll have another look in a while. Any thougts?TSRL (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow up! If you compare today's and yesterday's version on Argus Motoren, as an example, you'll see what I mean. All cns have gone from both red and blue links (don't worry about the asterisk; that is my typo). Much good (I thought) work undone.TSRL (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put a polite request on his page asking him to stop deleting cns and explaining why they are necessary. Pointed him to Lists again, on the Engine discussion page to see what all this is about.TSRL (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added some thoughts at the engine list talk page, I don't personally understand why any editor would want to work against this process (which is a very clear Misplaced Pages policy). Might need to bring this to the attention of an admin if your note meets a negative response. I'm currently very busy prepping for an overseas trip and will be away from any computer access between the 15th and 23rd of this month, stick at it. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive comments both here and on the list page. I wish he would ask questions before shooting; but we have a debate. Enjoy your Retreat! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I've just been looking at the other related (aircraft) list referencing discussion. I noticed that WP:REDDEAL is a guideline where WP:VERIFY is a policy. Without reading both very thoroughly I hope they don't conflict, by now most of the policies and guidelines have been written to agree with one another. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this guideline has been mentioned in discussions, might be worth a read. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We do have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles where endless red links can be added without sources (within reason!!). Editors do question why lists contain red links and I can understand that (WP:SEEALSO specifically says not to add red links to 'see also' sections because you can't 'also see' something that does not exist!). A better way, to me, to deal with the uncited red links in the engine list would be to remove them (making sure that they are included in the project page) and add an explanation and link to that page at the introduction paragraph so that they can be created and added. It's not going to happen but if I had my own linked list of engines on my own computer using this wiki software that's how I would do it. It's interesting that Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment appears to advise that 'list' class articles should contain only live links, which appears to conflict with other guidelines and the Featured List example that I found with red links. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hiro type 14

Nimbus, I have cleaned up the Hiro type 14 engine by rewording to NPOV and I have added citations where requested. Can the "needs citation" banner be removed? Can I do it after adding citations where they are needed?

I have "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II" by Graham White. It has some details of the Napier Lion engine which may be useful here as specs, etc. If I can find something useful, I will add it.

I have created a template for the Hiro Naval Arsenal. Would you please take a look at it?

Regards, Buster40004 Talk 21:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I've been very busy tonight, I meant to pop over to the various articles and templates. Good job with the cites, that's just how it's supposed to be (I would have added one for the fact about the 14th Emperor and wikilinked him as well). The specs missing tag should go at the bottom of the article as it is an article tag, if it was a section tag (like Template:Expand section) that would be added to the relevant section of an article. I've got full specs for the Napier Lion, what we need is specs for this engine (the Type 14). The infobox photo is misleading and someone will eventually notice, the caption could be 'tweaked' to justify why this photo of a different engine is there (see Napier Culverin where the same problem was highlighted a while ago).

I will make the changes as suggested.

I had a quick look at the Hiro template, we don't usually add documentation pages to these templates and I could not work out how to easily add it to Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes and Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes because of that. Have a look at all the others there and if you can please add it to those categories. I'll remove the ref tag from the Hiro 14. Sorry, I'm in a bit of a rush tonight as I'm going away on a trip. Please drop by at Ahunt's talk page for sound advice at any time, a very helpful chap and fellow member of the engine task force. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do there. Have a safe trip.

Regards, Buster40004 Talk 22:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I've got a day before I go away. To answer your first question about removing article cite banners it's best left to an independent editor (who did not create the article) to remove them, avoids the 'rat in charge of the cheese larder' syndrome!! If you think an article that you created needs tags removing you can ask another editor, no problem with that unless it is yourself again! Same with article quality assessment, most editors leave their created articles unassessed and hope that another editor will review it, others self-assess no higher than start class when they are experienced and can clearly see that the article is at least start class quality. You might want to have a go at assessing some articles to get a feel for it, there are currently 144 unassessed aircraft articles, the assessment guideline is at Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Be aware that many articles may be assessed as stub or start class even though they may actually be above that standard, it's just that the assessor did not have time to complete all the talk page check lists, I got roasted for it once until I explained!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will see what I can do. Right now I am compiling data matching up Japanese engines to airframes.

Buster40004 Talk 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This is an Editor Barnstar for all your good work related to aircrafts :-) Thanks for all the writings you added to Misplaced Pages!!! Hashar (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hashar, most appreciated. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi Nimbus, I've just read your interview on this week's Signpost issue. After the read, I thought if you and I could work together to promote the F-104 to GA status? Like you, I find the aircraft really, really interesting. I imagine it would be pity to leave such an article about a famous aircraft to just ly there rotting away without having work done on it. If you agree, may we invite Kyteto (who had done some recent outstanding work on the JAS 39 and F-20 Tigershark), Fnlayson, and a few others to join in the effort. What do you think about this proposal? Also, being an aviation enthusiast, I'd like to ask, what aircraft do you fly? Regarding the accidents about the F-104, I've read Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft by Paul Eden, and it says that the proportion of accidents suffered by Luftwaffe jet were similar to those operated by other air arms, but because it operated more aircraft, a lot of attention was given the the Luftwaffe accidents. Is this what the misunderstanding was? Sp33dyphil 12:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I did try to improve the 104 article about two years ago but the unbalanced daily input got too much to deal with so I took it off my watchlist, it's been back on my watchlist for a while now but I only really edit it to revert vandalism. Because it's quite a popular aircraft type the article quickly becomes unencylopedic (despite the efforts of others to keep it straight) and it is difficult to revert edits without being accused of ownership problems, a guideline that I understand very well as it is normally the first accusation when edits are reverted.

We could have a go at it, I've certainly got all the right references (I was the English translator for the later German F-40 series of books which included four or five on the F-104 ) and a good knowledge of its history and systems (I used to work on them in Germany when they visited, mainly flight line servicing and start up procedures). I was part of a team that recovered an Italian F-104S off the grass when a crosswind caught its drag chute on landing and took the pilot for a bumpy ride! Part of the German problem was the sheer numbers and publicity of losses and fatalities, not the percentage rate as you correctly worked out. The German story could be covered better by a separate article, some points that could be covered there fully are:

• The procurement process was based on flight tests by one German officer of the F-104A interceptor (the 'G' variant was a much heavier beast). He actually damaged the aircraft with a heavy landing and knocked his teeth out in the process!
• The Lockheed bribery scandal
• 'Der Spiegel' newspaper scandal.
• The massive European 'consortium' production effort.
• Poor pilot and ground crew training and inexperience due to the reformation of the Luftwaffe (there was a gap between 1945 and the late 1950s where no one was trained or they had taken civilian jobs).
• Rapid introduction of an advanced type coupled with the inexperience problems.
• Multiple failures of the single engine (afterburner blow out on take off and uncommanded exhaust nozzle opening in flight).
• False activation of the anti-stall 'stick pusher' system at low level, leading pilots to fly with the system turned off and subsequently stalling (often on the final turn to the landing approach).
• Insistence on maintaining a NATO alert status when aircraft were unserviceable.
• Parking outside in poor weather, affecting the avionics and other systems.
• Hazards of operating in poor weather at low level, many accidents were simple CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) and birdstrikes, clearly not the fault of the aircraft or the engine. The Canadians suffered the same problem as they were operating in the same environment.
• Grounding of the whole fleet in 1966 by Steinhoff to retrofit Martin-Baker seats after it was admitted that the original seats were not safe and payments were made to the families of lost aircrew. There was a marked improvement of safety after that.
• Over-ordering of spares (enough to last 100 years in the depots according to one NATO inspector). Many aircraft were retired early and used for spares, which indicates that the spares they had were not the right items!!
• Wing fatigue problems in later service (the fatigue index had not taken into account the high number of 'g' counts at low level in the fighter-bomber role).
• Introduction of an ejectable flight data recorder to determine better the causes of accidents.

Some of this stuff is touched upon in the current article (sorry for the long list, you did ask!!). I have individual aircraft and pilot details plus the summary of the cause for all 228 write-off accidents (116 fatalities) that occurred in German service, to analyse that list would be original research but luckily other reliable sources have done that for us, the problem is when this information is presented fairly in the article it gets disputed which I can't understand at all. I'm away for a week from 15/6 and I'll have a look at it again when I get back. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to answer about my flying, I've listed the types that I have flown here. I mainly fly a group-owned Tiger Moth nowadays (when it's not grounded for maintenance) and glider tugs, mostly DH Chipmunk, Robin DR400, Piper PA-25 Pawnee and PA-18 Super Cub. I was the chief instructor of a large gliding club for several years but I gave up instructing and gliding completely some time ago (club politics and the disrespectful attitude of some youngsters unfortunately). Up until recently I flew a Bücker Jungmann quite a lot but the owner found hangar space nearer his home and understandably moved it there, I miss it as it was much better than the Tiger for flying upside down (although I did get a face full of fuel from the venting tank every time I did it!!). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back! I'm sure you had a good break from normal life. Didn't realise it's been two weeks since I posted the message above. So, you're fine with me going ahead with F-104 and lending me some support? Also, you don't mind with reviewing GANs General Dynamics F-111C and Northrop YF-23, do you? Sp33dyphil 08:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Crikey! No need to ask me or anyone else, just crack on and we'll see what happens. I'm watching the article talk page (as are many others) so if you have any major plans it would be best to post them there. I'll have a look at the other two when I've unpacked!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up Lockheed XF-104, and posted a note on the talk page about a few unrefed paragraphs. If you have any relevant sources, do you mind adding them? I've got access to no books ATM. Sp33dyphil 06:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my Caps-->capscaps-2011-06-25T00:06:00.000Z">

And additional thanks for revising "Engine". Regards Buster40004 Talk 00:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)caps"> caps">

No worries, I was just doing a bit of 'wikignoming'. Been a bit busy lately, hope you are having fun and have got the hang of it now. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Scud 2

Morning Nimbus. I wondered if, as one who flew gliders, you have anything citable on the last 40 years of Scud 2 BA231/G-ALOT. I'm just rounding off an article on the Scud 2 and there are two things I'd like to nail with decent refs. First, it's often said that BA231 is the oldest BGA glider but I can't find anything citable to back this claim. Second, it's certainly in the Shuttleworth collection now, but when did it get there? W&R 22ed (p10) says December 2009 but here Martin Simon says 1972! There is an AB pic from 1981 that puts it at Dunstable so I'm doubtful about the earlier date, but Simon seems to be well regarded. Any thoughts/cites? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This photo puts it at Dustable in 2005. Either it was not then in the SC or it was flying under their ownership away from Old Warden.TSRL (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Afraid I can't help much with that one, I was going to say check 'W&R' but you've done that already. I went looking for my single copy of W&R but can't find it at the moment. I've not noticed it at Old Warden and I have no photos of it there (I've got piccies of most of the other aircraft). There is the G-INFO entry showing registration in 1949. It probably doesn't have a 'G' reg now because of its age, it would be treated as 'Non-EASA, Annex II', same as Tiger Moths are (although they do need to be registered!). I do know, after a recent inquiry, that all the old BGA archive is now with the Vintage Glider Club, they might be able to point to a book source for info on that particular Scud. I'm fairly close to Old Warden so next time I'm there I'll seek it out and take a photo. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I've yet to find the BGA register online. Another odd thing about the Scud 2 BGA231 is that at one time it carried the trigraph AAA, though United Kingdom aircraft registration says BGA101 was AAA.TSRL (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is an online BGA register, as a recently lapsed maintenance inspector (active for the last 20 years) I should have known about it. The VGC would be the best place for info, they have a forum where you could ask the right people (for your own interest of course but it might lead to citable sources!!). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

excuse - The United Kingdom aircraft registration may be my mistake AAA was BGA231 as they started the oldest (or at least the lowest numbered) survivng glider still extant (I will go and correct it). The BGA register (or an amateur version) was on line a few years ago and I have it as a xls spreadsheet up to BGA5251 if you guys are interested in it. I also have Merseyside Aviation's "British Gliders" from the late 1970s which lists them from BGA101 a BAC Primary from 1930 up to BGA2019 if you need any info. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to use your page Nimbus - Abbott-Baynes Scud IIs from 1970s book:

• BGA Type C/No Cof A Notes
• 123 II - - G-ALKZ postwar
• 193 II - 8.33 (the spreadsheet version shows crashed)
• 200 II - x.33 crashed
• 231 II 215B 8.35 Built by Slingsby G-ALOT post-war current

Hope that is of interest. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) No worries. I didn't actually check the wikilink, I rarely believe anything that I read on WP nowadays!! No offence to the creator! ;-) Shame that it's come to that though. I'm not at all savvy with vintage gliders but there are real enthusiasts out there. I've just been given an enormous pile of aviation books (more to come yet), no glider stuff in them though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More no worries, I've been called worse! While you're here how do you redirect a duplicate article to two existing articles at the same time?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dont think you can - do you have an example? MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think you can either!! if you look at my contribs I found a duplicate article that was actually describing two types, one had an article and the other is covered in a variants section. I explained on the talk page. There's lots of confusion with the Mirage series, one of the books I just got helps a lot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Those pesky ISBNs?!

Even though the International Standard Book Number is sometimes cited in references, it is technically an optional tracing that is really only useful for ordering or re-ordering the item. FWiW, the "standard" in Wikiwackywonderland is to include the ISBN but it's sometimes left out entirely by the publisher and only a diligent search on the publisher's catalogue will produce the information. Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

I like to include it but I'm pretty sure it's not printed anywhere in that book, it's pretty old I suppose but plenty of books before that have ISBNs. I'm gratefully receiving a large collection of aviation books in instalments (I think from someone who has gone 'upstairs' recently), I have nowhere to put them but needs must!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyper engine

I have edited out many, if not all, of the material commented upon on the article's talk page. It would now be quite easy to transfer the remaining sections into the existing Hyper engine article. I was quite concerned about the major rework necessary to revise the existing article with what material I thought was needed to revive it, but I am now confident, with the consensus of all concerned, that I can manage that task. Would you please, when you find a moment, take a look at my edits and leave your comments? Regards, Buster40004 Talk 16:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Have commented over there, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect at List of rocket engines

Hi Nimbus227. According to this change, you made List of rocket engines into a redirect as per a discussion. However, I can't find the discussion in question. Could you tell me where it is? I'd like to understand the reasoning. Thanks! --Doradus (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably this archived discussion from the date, if not search the archives at WT:AETF (box provided on that page). We had a big problem with list forking. At the time List of aircraft engines was sectioned into types, an editor later changed that without consensus so rockets and other types are difficult to find now. If you check the talk page of that list article you will find the editor who made the change and it could be discussed further with them (same editor created the multiple list forks that had to be redirected). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much. --Doradus (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a slightly complicated problem now due to the editor changing the format of list of aircraft engines, this was done without understanding how the project articles interlinked, I should have noted that and objected more strongly at the time. The problem as I saw it was that List of rocket engines implies a list of all rocket engines, all the aero engine task force is concerned with is rocket engines that powered aircraft (there are 12 categorised at Category:Aircraft rocket engines so strictly the matching list (if it had been forked) should have been List of aircraft rocket engines. There are obviously a lot more rocket engine articles that relate to spaceflight and missiles.

A way round the problem would be to make list of rocket engines into a disambiguation page that could link to list of aircraft rocket engines (I think they are rare enough to have their own list article but that would need to be discussed at AETF) and list of spacecraft rocket engines or some similar title to be agreed by the spaceflight project, I'm assuming that there is not one already and that they would want to create a list. Missiles are dealt with by another project I think but their rocket engines probably should be categorised or listed somewhere as well, I haven't looked. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Short wikibreak

I'm away for two days, back on 20/7. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A330

Hi Nimbus, I'm here to explain some of my inabilities to address your comments on the Airbus A330. Although I tried to and did carry out some of your suggestions, there were some points that cannot be readily addressed. The first of such points regarded the "West Germans", which you wanted me to explain further. The Norris and Wagner book did not provide much information about this point, merely saying something along the line of "this angered West Germany since it wanted a quad-jet", without providing a specific organisation. I tried to find out who these West Germans were, but I do not have very good knowledge of the West German aerospace industries during the 1970s. The second point that I couldn't address regarded the accidents and incidents. I understand what you're trying to get across, but it doesn't say anywhere on Misplaced Pages that the "Accidents and incidents" section is specifically reserved for accidents and incidents attributed to the aircraft's fault. At the bottom of that section, in edit mode, has a note that says "Entries need to meet criteria at WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft and airlines (A) to be added here. Thanks." While comparing the page in question and the article, all the incidents fit under the criteria, although the third and second last incidents didn't result in any deaths. Thirdly, you raised a point about the aircraft's size. A330's prose size, including all HTML code, is 51 kB. To put that into perspective, Boeing 777's prose size is at 62 kB, while Boeing 747's is 72 kB. Well as for the specifications section, I think the engine table could be disposed of completely, but, with, the considerable differences between the passenger variants, the specs table will be left unaltered. I've got a query, why did you decide to raise the point about the aircraft specifications template during A330's FAC? Have you discussed it elsewhere? I was pretty flat after reading your suggestions, some of which other editors seem to be pretty happy with. I plan to again put the art. through another FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear your responses to my points above, and see if there's any remote chance you're going to Support. Sp33dyphil 01:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite understandable to complain and I will answer your questions when I am better able (have just completed my work shift pattern and am not in the best state of freshness to answer at the moment). I will re-arrange your single paragraph post in to numbered points so it is easier for me to answer when I can (if you don't mind). There were several (many?) supports at the third attempt and I believe just my single oppose. The FAC delegates consider all the views at review and if the oppose comments are invalid they will discount them. Although I did not see it in black and white I am sure the last nomination was closed because of the excessive amount of editing not required by comments during the review. I did note this, it was impossible to ignore. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Points to answer

• 1. The first of such points regarded the "West Germans", which you wanted me to explain further. The Norris and Wagner book did not provide much information about this point, merely saying something along the line of "this angered West Germany since it wanted a quad-jet", without providing a specific organisation. I tried to find out who these West Germans were, but I do not have very good knowledge of the West German aerospace industries during the 1970s.

The phrase does not seem to appear in the article now, someone must have removed it, solving the problem. The history of the German division of Airbus is complicated because of all the company mergers but two of the main ancestor companies were Hamburger Flugzeugbau and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm. There is a brief history on the EADS website, only available in German though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2. The second point that I couldn't address regarded the accidents and incidents. I understand what you're trying to get across, but it doesn't say anywhere on Misplaced Pages that the "Accidents and incidents" section is specifically reserved for accidents and incidents attributed to the aircraft's fault. At the bottom of that section, in edit mode, has a note that says "Entries need to meet criteria at WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft and airlines (A) to be added here. Thanks." While comparing the page in question and the article, all the incidents fit under the criteria, although the third and second last incidents didn't result in any deaths.

WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a guideline or policy. It's down to editorial judgement as to what gets included in that section, too little and it appears that a type may be very safe with a flawless record, too much and we get into WP:NOT problems (i.e. WP is not a list of everything there was). As a reviewer I would be looking for relevance of entries, not necessarily notability. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• 3. Thirdly, you raised a point about the aircraft's size. A330's prose size, including all HTML code, is 51 kB. To put that into perspective, Boeing 777's prose size is at 62 kB, while Boeing 747's is 72 kB. Well as for the specifications section, I think the engine table could be disposed of completely, but, with, the considerable differences between the passenger variants, the specs table will be left unaltered. I've got a query, why did you decide to raise the point about the aircraft specifications template during A330's FAC? Have you discussed it elsewhere?

Kb size is not necessarily a good indicator of article size (but it is a quantity that the guideline uses), there are other factors to consider, this paragraph is from the WP:TOOLONG editing guideline:

Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. Most articles do not need to be excessively long; however, there are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion.

Splitting can be used to reduce article length but it shouldn't be viewed as a negative 'un-building the wiki' measure, it can be successfully used to expand on a subject. Not so long ago the Supermarine Spitfire was covered by a single article, there are now eight articles.

Specs tables: Yes, I've brought it up before (at B777 FAC review) and also suggested that it is discussed and solved at WT:AIR to avoid future problems. To my knowledge there is no guideline that airliner specs should be in a different format to the rest of the aircraft types covered by the project. There are however guidelines indicating that the table format is deprecated and that Template:Aircraft specifications should be used.

When I started editing aircraft articles I looked at the Featured Articles to see how it should be done, a new user doing the same thing today would be understandably confused when they look at the B777 specs section but then notes the words Please use the new {{Aircraft specifications}} conditional template when adding specifications... in the aircraft project page layout guideline. There were just two aircraft type Featured Articles at the time, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (since re-assessed as C class) and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, both types have many variants but their specs sections follow the guideline of detailing just one.

It's not a matter of rigidly sticking to the guidelines (however a lot of thought has been put into writing them over the years) or a personal preference 'crusade' but the difference between using the template to describe one variant and listing several variants in a table is obviously a large reduction of the 'sea of numbers' that can cause readers' attention span to drift.

It's very easy to forget that we are writing general encyclopaedia articles and not dedicated aircraft encyclopaedia articles, one day the project content might get copied/migrated to something like this and we could add all the detail that we wanted and everyone would be happy. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion about the specs table at Talk:Airbus A330#Specifications table. I recommend you read it. Sp33dyphil 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

your view on Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Firstly, I wish to thank you for taking the time to review and converse with me on the 1st generation Harrier's article, your comments have been valuable at stimulating positive development on the article, and I have appreciated the input. I wondered, would you have any further thoughts, looking back several weeks on, at its current state? For instance, did I properly resolve the italics issue? I plan to do some work on Misplaced Pages this weekend, and pointers could effective direct me to where the work needs to be done. If you have the time and interest to do it, I won't waste the effort made on your part. Kyteto (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't see any italics problem in the text now but the aircraft idents in 'Aircraft on display' have not been changed yet (XV..., G-VTOL etc). Aircraft tail number/registrations are treated as individual names and are allowed to be italicised per the MOS (which mentions this convention with ships but not aircraft). If the 'Jane's' source in the 'Specs' section was italicised it would prevent the mixed typeface that can be seen at the moment (i.e. Data from Jane's). The images around the operators section don't quite line up with the matching text and one image (the two-seater I think) is overhanging into the next section, I try to avoid that personally. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Two Rs

While looking for info on the civil Merlin 600-700 series I came across "The Two Rs"a 1954 Flight article detailing the development of Rolls-Royce engines: I had never heard about the R-R Hawk until this. Must-keep-digging...◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting find, we do have an article on the Rolls-Royce Hawk, most of these older engines are not well covered. That article would probably help a lot. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

British European Airways Flight 548 GAN

I see you were the force behind this article being nominated for Featured Article. Since then it's been nominated for good article by another individual. I've completed my initial review and wanted to let you know in case you would like to assist. Thanks! N419BH 04:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that review in progress and thanks for the courtesy of contacting me. I'm sorry that you find it dull in places, an awful lot of effort went into improving that article by myself and another editor some time ago. Strangely, the two FAC reviews did not pick up on points that you have. The background information is necessary to put the cockpit situation and the aircraft type's stalling behaviour into context and these subjects are actually covered in much more detail in the sources used. The accident itself is not much better covered in the official report than this article, in fact I think the eye-witness statements do not appear there. The report was a public inquiry (not a straightforward AIB report), this article summarises all the theories and investigations that the board members of that inquiry put forward (necessary for the 'exhaustion of sources' aspect of FAC).

Some theories, a statement by the Captain's daughter and the actions of an American lawyer during the inquiry were removed from this article on another editor's insistence (although they were reliably sourced), I don't believe it is currently telling the full story as it is portrayed in the majority of sources. This event was not simply an aircraft accident and the article should reflect that. The article length was deemed short enough to cover the industrial dispute, the accident, the inquiry and subsequent changes to airworthiness requirements and crew procedures without splitting to sub-articles.

I have most of the sources in the bibliography, if something needs specifically citing or explaining better I could try to do that, referencing was not noted as a problem at the FACs as I remember. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only got referencing red for a statement regarding the labor dispute which is uncited. I've specifically mentioned it in my bulleted comments. Once that statement has a source I will pass referencing unless I find another issue. For what it's worth, I did not read the FAC reviews, nor will I, as GA is a separate process with much different criteria. I do have a question though, why was this article nominated for FA twice and never nominated for GA until now? I agree that the background information is necessary, and it is true that the accident sequence is fully explained. What is difficult about this accident is the lack of a CVR onboard the aircraft, so there are no crew statements to go along with the sequence of control inputs. The focus of my concern is that while all of these incidents and labor disputes are fully explained in the background section, the investigation section barely touches on them. If the article is going to discuss all these issues as necessary background, the investigation section needs to explain how these issues affected the accident. As it stands the only place where most of these are mentioned is in the bulleted list of conclusions. This leaves the article unbalanced toward background events. N419BH 19:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The non-coverage of the dispute's effects by the report is noted by Bartelski, the line in the article is: Though the report covered the state of industrial relations at BEA, no mention was made of it in its conclusions, despite the feelings of observers that it intruded directly and comprehensively onto the flight deck of the stricken aircraft. Bartelski's summarised coverage of the accident and his own theories were part of the material that was removed on another editor's request at FAC, this is probably the missing coverage you are looking for, I believe it should be there. The dispute is well covered in sources other than the official report, I can only assume that they mention it to give background for Captain Key's outburst, the stressful effect that it might have had on him and a possible cause of his reported heart condition. Many questions remain unanswered on this accident and all a Misplaced Pages article on it can do is summarise the sources and let the reader decide.

The short answer why this article has not been nominated by myself for GA or anything else is that I basically gave up on it when relevant material was removed (mentioned above), I watch it for vandalism, changes to the established citation style (the whole article was changed recently for no reason, since reverted by the changing editor on request) and any poor quality edits (introduced spelling mistakes etc.). I'll have a look at the questioned fact soon and add an inline citation. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Without seeing the content, my concern would be that including such content from a single source might get too close to WP:FRINGE. It all depends on the credibility and experties of the sourse, and I am not familiar with Bartelski. Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing a labor dispute on the ground caused a crew to stall a three-engine airliner. Pretty much the only way a stall can happen is if a crew is not paying attention to speed and thence ignores the stall warnings, as it appears happened here based on the FDR recordings. The only other way I can think of would be if the airspeed indication system were to fail and the crew forgot about pitch+power=performance. It does seem possible, based on the recorded flight control inputs, that the Captain was focused on matters outside the cockpit, especially at the point where he flies the aircraft at droops-extended climb speed even though he had already retracted the droops. Why the crew thence ignored the stall warnings is a mystery.

So no, I'm not really looking for information on how the labor dispute caused the accident, I'm looking for information on how the labor dispute contributed to the accident, how the inquiry reached its conclusions, and how the previous incidents tie in. Right now the article simply says there was an inquiry, mentions some controversy about the statements of the American lawyer, then lists the conclusions without explaining how they were obtained. N419BH 05:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The conclusions are virtually as written in the official report, how they were reached there is not explained either and is apparently why the report was so unpopular, the conclusions are basically the opinion of the board members.

I bought Bartelski's book especially for this article, I can't find it at the moment but from memory he was a 10,000 hour plus airline pilot and head of IFALPA. The book is divided into chapters describing separate accidents, most of them unexplained. The feeling I got is that he mostly defended the crews, shifting the blame towards other possible causes (but not always). This accident is covered by a chapter, he takes time to include technical diagrams and explain the aircraft systems in great detail. I think he put forward three alternative theories, the main one being a possible difference in airspeed indication between the cockpit instruments and what the flight data recorder actually recorded (crew saw 180 knots, FDR recorded 160 knots for example). The theories were removed under 'undue weight', my thoughts were that they were published and verifiable, he could be considered 'scholarly' (more qualified than the inquiry board members at least) and not exactly a fringe theorist and only one paragraph covered his thoughts.

The missing cite is Stewart p. 91 which appears at the end of the paragraph. The dispute was over 'pay and conditions', mentioned in the article, the situation with the junior officers is expanded on as that was the main thing they were unhappy with. At the GAN review a 'backwards' situation is noted with the crew rostering, that is exactly what was happening, this section explains it:

To compensate for a temporary shortage of fully qualified co-pilots, SFOs were instructed to occupy only the third flight deck seat of the Trident and to act in the capacity known as "P3", involving operating the aircraft’s systems and assisting the captain (known as "P1" on the BEA Trident fleet) and the co-pilot (known as "P2") who between them handled the aircraft. In other airlines and aircraft, the job of BEA Trident SFO/P3s was usually performed by flight engineers. As a result of being limited to the P3 role, BEA Trident SFOs/P3s were denied experience of aircraft handling, a measure which led to loss of pay, which they resented. In addition, their status led to a regular anomaly: experienced SFO/P3s could only assist while less-experienced co-pilots actually flew the aircraft.

I bolded the reason why they were unhappy there. It doesn't say in the article 'the accident was partly caused by the industrial dispute which caused bad feeling and distraction on the flight deck' because it doesn't directly say that in sources but it was obviously felt to be a factor by the aviation community at the time otherwise it would not have been mentioned. The Crew Resource Management (CRM) programmes that evolved after this accident were all about advising junior officers not to be afraid to point out the mistakes of a senior crew member and for senior officers to listen to them. I think CRM is mentioned but its link to the situation on Papa India's flight deck is not direct (or even there) as it is not given in the sources that I have found. I've just added a minor wording change that might address the text linking of the Felthorpe/Orly/Naples section. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My question is, if there was a shortage of qualified first officers, why where supervisory first officers moved to flight engineer? I would think if they were short first officers they wouldn't do this. There must be some tidbit of information missing.

I am somewhat concerned if Mr. Bartelski was head of the union and liked shifting blame away from crews. That might push his theories further into WP:FRINGE, though I would imagine his reporting of the known facts is spot on and reliable. It would be his conclusions I'd be concerned with.

If the conclusions were simply stated and not explained then that needs to be stated in the investigation section.

It's extremely unfortunate that it took a series of accidents for CRM to become standard. I studied UAL 232 extensively in college and that accident is pretty much the textbook example of CRM actually working. N419BH 08:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were certainly up against it there. The P1/2/3 situation is covered fairly well by Stewart although I can't quite work out myself what the precise problem was. BEA had enough pilots overall but the experience balance was wrong, it seems that they had a large recruiting campaign which resulted in many new pilots needing line training (in the P2 seat, supervised by a training captain which I think Captain Key was), if the P3 was under training then an experienced 'SFO' occupied the jump seat. Stewart says that BEA were not happy with this arrangement either so it's possible it was some kind of CAA regulation forcing the situation that is not mentioned there.

Bartelski's 'bee in the bonnet' throughout the book seems to be along the lines of 'aircraft crashes in the sea, no wreckage, no FDR, lost without trace or radio messages, conclusion pilot error, this is wrong'. I think he had a point and the book needs to be read to understand what he is trying to get across. I'm not defending him at all, he might well be completely wrong but the source is there. Someone may well pipe up on the talk page that they've got a book by Bartelski covering this accident and ask why his thoughts are not mentioned in the article? One thing is for sure, it's unlikely that anyone will ever get this article right, I tried and although it was not promoted at FAC twice I do believe it is in a much better state than it was a couple of years ago, that's all that matters really. Excuse my grammar, luckily my talk page posts are not subject to copy editing!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. New pilots to an aircraft type need a certain amount of "time in type" with a training Captain while they gain experience. After a period of hours aloft, they become fully qualified and can thence fly with regular Captains. These are federal regulations, not airline ones. So the situation is that BEA had a bunch of new First Officers and needed to get them trained up quickly. Since airline new hires at that time usually spent a period of time as Second Officer (flight engineer) and then upgraded to First Officer, they probably had a shortage of flight engineers too. So they instructed the SFOs to handle flight engineer while they moved through the backlog of training First Officers and hired brand new flight engineers. Could you clarify that in the article when you get a chance since you have access to the sources? N419BH 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably this line that is not quite correct: To compensate for a temporary shortage of fully qualified co-pilots, SFOs were instructed to occupy only the third flight deck seat of the Trident and to act in the capacity known as "P3"... It's more that they had an excess of unqualified co-pilots needing line training as you say and the SFOs had to give up their seats for them. I can adjust that and add a cited explanatory footnote as the hours involved etc. is too much detail for the text. I can't mention or cite anything about CAA regulations as it's not mentioned. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading Stewart again it was the fact that the 22 SFO's had 'withdrawn their services' (as P3 presumably) that made BEA unhappy (not the CAA). The SFO's action was stopping 36 trainees from completing their line training, Jeremy Keighley (P2 on Papa India) was one of them. The line still needs adjusting, I'll look at it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have managed to untangle it, no need for a new cite as it's using the same source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's much better. If you could add the cite for the first sentence I can check that bullet off. My concern regarding undue weight will probably be satisfied either by the deleted paragraphs you've mentioned above or by a brief paragraph discussing the lack of analysis regarding the inquiry's conclusions. That'll cover most of the major issues. I see you made a couple changes regarding the two incidents which I mentioned, they still don't seem to flow right and I wonder if it would be better to eliminate the separate section headings entirely and simply put the incident names in quotation marks in the prose. N419BH 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Unicodifying?

Greetings Nimbus,

I was doing cleanup with AWB, and it took exception about the wikilinks. I agree that the lead should be the link retained, but AWB has an alert when it finds 2 or more of the same links. If I removed the lead links, that was a mistake, and I will fix them from the list of edits. I have no idea why it called the edits "Unicodifying". Regards, Buster40004 Talk 17:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never used AWB, preferring to do everything manually and check the effect using 'show preview'. Many articles will have links deliberately repeated (when they are far apart in the text for instance) so the programming is adrift somewhere, I've not seen AWB do that before. I think I've fixed most of the missing links already. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Nimbus227! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Is it for anything in particular? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes

I'm again sorry for misinterpreting what you said about "aeroengine" usage. I thought your use of aeroengine as a codeword was intended use it in both article title as well as the title in the navboxes, which to me seem to be the the same. I guess that my desire for consistency has tripped me up.

Is it correct then to do the following: article titles only we use "aeroengines", navbox titles and elsewhere, we use "aero engine" or "aircraft engine". Is that the way it is to be done? Regards, Buster40004 Talk 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I might not have explained it clearly enough. Another minor point on the navboxes is that we try to keep the names short so Template:Scott Motor Cycle Company ltd. aeroengines would just be Template:Scott aeroengines, it makes it much more intuitive when adding them to articles. You can move any like this yourself if you feel inclined. There is a slight intentional inconsistency throughout the navbox displayed titles, some using 'aircraft engine' (which aligns with all the categories) and some using 'aero engine'. The latter is a more Brit/Commonwealth term and tends to be seen in related company navboxes, 'aircraft engine' tends to be seen in US and any other country navboxes. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jacobson Flare

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jacobson Flare. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Four years

Congratulations upon sticking with the Wiki for four very productive years. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! It's been a struggle at times and my enthusiasm level is not what it was but yep, I'm still here! That glider has gone to a new owner but the Moth is running well now, a real shame that I didn't get it done in time for your visit. Cheers again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You participated in the Jacobson Flare AFD, which is now restarted

You recently participated in the AFD for Jacobson Flare, which resulted in a deletion review, which got it relisted. I'm contacting everyone who didn't notice and participate in the new one already. Dream Focus 06:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)