Talk:2015 Blackbushe Phenom 300 crash

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Blackbushe Phenom 300 crash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Aviation: Accidents

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Hampshire Low‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Over-run or over shoot??

From the crash dynamics this crash is something other than a simple orer-run, and certainly not a simple over-shoot. Okay it has been noted that the aircraft seemed to come in hot, (FDR data?). Why not initiate a simple go-around? How did the aircraft come to impact with ZERO forward speed in the middle of the auction house car-park???? The reference quoted as saying it was an over-run is clearly mistaken!--Petebutt (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aviation media ref says it was "a runway overrun accident". Do you have a ref for your claims or is that all WP:OR? - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the photos. The aircraft impacted vertically with no forward speed. To infer otherwise would be speculative. All I am saying is remove text inferring that the author already knows the outcome of the investigation!!! Further to that you dont need a reference to counter a reference that is clearly wrong!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To change a reliable ref you need more than your own speculation, you need a reliable ref. You know that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sayibnng change the reference. I am saying that text attributed to a reference is clearly mistaken. Continue to use the reference, but it would be incorrect for text in the article to second guess the investigation, apart from the fact that it is patently incorrect anyway.--Petebutt (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not refer to over-shoots or over-runs, until the investigation determines what happens. What can be written is that the aircraft impacted in the car park and that is all!!!! Come on, admit it, you know I am right, don't you?--Petebutt (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See

crash site photo

which clearly shows that the aircraft did NOT over-run but impacted roughly vertically.--Petebutt (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is all WP:OR, we have to go with WP:RS until there are new sources. I should also point out that the term "runway overrun" doesn't just mean "cut a swath off the end of the runway until it stopped" but can refer to any landing accident where the aircraft ends up off the end of the runway, whether it skips back into the air after touching down or even fails to touch down on the runway before overrunning. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR. The photo only proves that the source was incorrect in stating over-run / overshoot.--Petebutt (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the photo is OR. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The recent additions of a BBC ref show how it impacted after the overrun and skipping back into the air. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC ref, at least, indicates that the plane landed too far down the runway at high speed before overshooting. I don't see the problem... -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]