Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom

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

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New listings in the List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom must:

Have occurred in UK territory, air space, or territorial waters;
Meet the notability criteria as defined by the Aviation WikiProject;
Have occurred on a commercial airliner; and
Include the date, location, flight number (if any), cause, brief description, and reference (or link to article on the accident).

For more information, please see WP:AIRCRASH.

Re: Ryan Kirkpatrick and IP:220:253:172:45

I've reverted all edits by 220.253.172.45 (talk · contribs) because, on balance, they are not constructive although they were made in good faith. I appreciate the reason given for the initial deletion of about half the article was valid per WP:BAN, but that deletion removed links to several aircrash articles. Further edits to the list changed specific Boeing aircraft models to generic ones. My belief is that we should describe aircraft as accurately as possible, thus Boeing 747-121 and not Boeing 747-100. The way we should deal with this is by rewriting specific accidents to make them more encyclopedic. Any removals should be done one at a time rather than piecemeal, as that makes subsequent re-insertion a lot easier should it be judged that the removal should be undone. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the 1920s and 1930s entries. From the 1940s onwards, entries with just a date and link to the article need to be rewritten to give a brief overview of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general rule is not to use the customer designations on Boeing types although I would agree they are needed in the related aircraft accident articles. The fact that a Boeing 747-100 was originally built for Pan Am hence the "21" is probably not that relevant to this list. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that they should be re-done in the same style as the 1920s and 1930s but this will not take long so we dont need to remove all the "just link" entries for the moment. Perhaps we should add an under construction tag while it appears to be a mess. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo, it's more important for you to reward and encourage a serial sockpuppeter and restore a whole heap of rubbish that barely qualifies as English as well, and waste a couple of hours of work that actually made the article better, than it is to temporarily remove a few blue links that could easily be added back in a few minutes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.245.232 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think we need to encourage the sockpuppet he/she appears under a new name every few days so nothing much we do here will stop that. Please be patient it will get sorted in a few days but some of us have real lives so it wont get done overnight. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kirkpatrick and his socks are being dealt with per whack-a-mole. The removal was valid on policy, but this was a case where I felt that WP:IAR could be applied, particularly as since the entries were added, articles had been written and linked to those entries. As MilborneOne said, the article will be bashed into shape. You have an example of how the relevant entries should be rewritten, and you are welcome to assist in this. Unless, of course, you'd rather spend your time complaining about the issue. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1929 accident at Paddock Wood

The Times gives the airline as Air Union, and the date as 19 May 1929. A possible contender is Nieuport 81 F-ACGT, whose registration was cancelled in May 1929 as the aircraft had been destroyed. Can anyone confirm this was the actual aircraft? Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub that! It was F-GEAI, a Farman F.63 Goliath.

Thanks for that I couldnt find it at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for this article seems rather strange in that it demands that every entry has to have an article - surely the advantage of list type articles like this is that entries can be provided for suitably notable and referenced entries that do meet the notability criteria defined by the project when they don't have an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you said it can be a usefull list to the reader and not all accidents or incidents are worthy of an article. The IP has just removed all the entries per the note at the top of this talk page, I think the note can go. MilborneOne (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fault the IP for acting in good faith by following the notice. That said, I think that the notice should be altered, but there needs to be some criteria for inclusion, such as the aircraft suffering substantial damage, otherwise every minor bump could be seen as fit for inclusion. Item 1 should go, item 5 should be amended slightly as pre WWII flight numbers were not used. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the IP action which is why it has not been reverted, agree it needs some criteria. Only concerned with accidents but I have been using the (self imposed) aircraft destroyed and or fatal criteria when I have been adding entries but open to suggestions. One of the thing that can come out of the list is that accidents notable enough for a stand-alone article can appear and be created in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say destroyed or suffering substantial damage. Lack of fatalities does not necessarily mean lack of notability (1965 Skyways Coach-Air Avro 748 crash, British Airways Flight 38), whereas a passenger dying from a heart attack during a flight would not make a notable accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood I cant see why the page needs any different criteria then that used for an aircraft or airline accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Stevvvv4444 (talk · contribs) of this discussion on 9 March. He is the editor who placed the notice on this talk page. Although he has edited since then, there has been no response from him. I propose that the notice be duly amended per consensus here. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An there's been no reply, and no objections, I've altered the notice at the top of this talk page. All that's left to do now is to re-add the deleted entries. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the accidents and incidents removed earlier, with the exception of one obviously nn incident. As discussed above, these entries will need to be gone through and expanded. It may be that some of them are nn and will need deletion. I would ask that any removals are done one at a time, rather than piecemeal, with a valid edit summary for each removal. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The article could do with more images, but they should be images of the actual aircraft involved and not generic ones. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eirjet Ballykelly incident

The Eirjet flight landing at the wrong airport has been removed. As the article title includes incidents, I think this incident is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really fussed either way, I can see why some would think it notable enough for inclusion. Mistakes of this nature aren't all that rare (if the general public knew more of what happens in aviation there would be a lot more frightened flyers!); there was no damage either, except perhaps to the careers of the two people sitting in the pointy end. YSSYguy (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, both were given the sack and Eirjet's contract with Ryanair was also cancelled. This sort of thing is usually a GA mistake, although not unknown in commercial aviation. Will wait and see what other editors think before it gets re-added. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a strong opinion either way would really need to know how common it is for commercial aircraft to land at the wrong airport. The only other I can think of is the Northolt instead of Heathrow confusion where they had to paint the names on gas holders on the approach as a warning, at least one Pan Am 707 landed at Northolt. So it may be if Eirjet is mentioned then we need to look at the Northolt incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty rare in UK for scheduled commercial flights. As you say, Northolt / Heathrow used to be common enough that measures had to be taken to prevent it. Not a problem today due to LHR only having E-W runways open now. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter crashes?

Should helicopter crashes be within the scope of this list when the helicopter is operating as an airliner? For example the 1983 British Airways Sikorsky S-61 crash involved a scheduled passenger service between Penzance and the Scilly Isles when it crashed, and as it crashed close to St Mary's, Isles of Scilly, the accident presumably occurred in UK territorial waters?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes they should be. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverted move

This list was recently moved to the "list of aviation accidents and incidents in United Kingdom", a move which was quickly reverted. Rightly so, as the new title completely changes the scope of the list. For example, it we went with the reverted title, the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash would now be an eligible entry. Let's keep the title as is, and the scope of the list likewise. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article was always intended to only include airliners. MilborneOne (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]