Talk:1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717021641/http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/general/ethicol/Ecv12no2.html to http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/general/ethicol/Ecv12no2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Names

See https://www.palacebarracksmemorialgarden.co.uk/archive/Mull%20of%20Kintrye.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.192.75 (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

One theory

One theory can be seen at https://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-s-cover-up-of-inside-job-in-fatal-raf-chinook-crash/27828 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This is only one theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.71.246 (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

GPS SatNav

Back in 1994 the $400 hand-held Garmin GPS 45 was available on the open market. A device able to accept latitude/longitude way-pointsAND store simplistic bearing/distance route directions. Are we to believe even a hack-job (multi million dollar) digital flight control system did not have the function of a $400 GPS system (or going further back to 1990 when the Magellan sold the first commercially available NAV 1000 costing $3000). After Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was shot down in 1983 after a navigation error led them into Soviet airspace, U.S. President Ronald Reagan ordered GPS technologies to be freely available for civilian use. The first commercial handheld GPS receiver came six years later in the form of the Magellan NAV 1000, after the first civilian GPS satellite was launched. But it wasn't until 2000 when U.S. President Bill Clinton ordered that Selective Availability be turned off, which brought civilian GPS accuracy from 300 m to 20 m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.109.83 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

title

"1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash" is a bit of an awkward phrasing - I'd suggest either 1994 RAF Chinook crash as a more standard phrasing (compare the others in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1994, which tend to use just operator/type plus date), or 1994 Mull of Kintyre crash/1994 Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash, since it is probably more generally referred to by the specific location. I have no great preference either way, but I think either would be preferable to the one we have now. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force (knew there would be a guideline somewhere): "For articles on air accidents without a flight number, the title should be in the format: "<year> <airline> <aircraft> <event>" or, if this is not possible, "<year> <place> <event>". So it sounds like either works but 1994 RAF Chinook crash would be the preferred form. If there's no objections I'll move it in a few days. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that's not to general to identify the subject. They're could potentially be multiple similar crashes and a reader might struggle with searching for this one. I also think it's better-known for its location than its year. I'd support something like Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, with or without the year. And whatever we call it, we should create redirects for all plausible alternative titles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that - maybe 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash? I think it's not strictly needed for "better known by" but I find the consistent use of dates in article titles is quite handy. And agree on a forest of redirects from all thee variations... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell Now moved. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Macca of the Beatles (Zionist Maccabees) Paul MacCartney his Mull of KinTYRE and the blackspot?

Is it okay to byword Paul MacCartney his 1977 hit “Mull of Kintyre” and the aforesaid links to the ancient Tyre, the Zionist Maccabees and the later Mull of Kintyre crashsiteblackspot? 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:494F:B25E:69DD:FF58 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Other causes

The final paragraph reads:

The aircraft had not been classified as airworthy. It was mandated upon the RAF that it was "not to be relied upon in any way".

This presumably is referring to the CAR warning the navigation and communication systems were not to be relied upon. But the 'it' here refers to the whole aircraft so "in any way" does not make sense. For example, the power/engine systems and flight control surfaces were all fine.

Could someone who knows more about this topic than I do please rewrite the second sentence (or delete it?). Thanks.

Armuluk (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The aircraft was clearly classified as airworthy, since it was in actual service at the time. The FADEC system does not seem to have had anything to do with the accident since the engine chips showed that the engines were behaving normally. The accident occurred partly because the command pilot mistakenly entered the wrong co-ordinates for the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse into the navigation system, out by several hundred yards, and mainly because both pilots, who for whatever unknown reason (fatigue and possibly just chat) appear not to have been paying attention at the critical moments, flew from visual into instrument conditions -- instrument conditions which they should have seen coming -- without making the necessary reduction in speed and increase in altitude until too late. The inquiry found that, even when they belatedly reacted, finding themselves suddenly blind in cloud, they selected the wrong climb angle (perhaps because they did not know their true position, the wrong waypoint co-ordinates having been entered pre-flight) and could therefore never have cleared the high terrain in their path at the speed they were maintaining. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)