Talk:Meopham air disaster

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

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

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.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:Death Assessment Commentary[edit]

Before a B-class is assessed, I think the article would benefit from a "Results" section, that might address the following issues:

As this was the first air accident to be published, it should be confirmed that a precedent was set, that was eventually mandated by law.
Since this accident, has it been standard practice to hold closed-sessions during the inquiry, and make the final report available to "all solicitors"? Was this policy in place, or did this incident set a precedent?
The coroner said that souvenir hunters hindered his work. Did this lead to early measures for disaster management?
Technical aspects: Did the findings of the inquiry lead to improvements in wing construction? engine mounts? overall fuselage construction?

Overall, an interesting article on an important event. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. Aircrash investigation in the UK (as I suspect elsewhere) evolved gradually. Initially, it would have come from the RFC/RNAS/RAF investigations into accidents occuring during training and operations. With the start of civil aviaition in the UK on 1 May 1919, came the start of civil aircraft crashes, and subsequently investigation. Sightseers were a common feature of early aircraft crashes. Sometimes the people assisted in the rescue of victims, sometimes they stole pieces of the aircraft as souvenirs. Sightseers were a problem as late as 1972. The first public inquiry into and aircraft accident in the UK was in 1924 Imperial Airways de Havilland DH.34 crash.

Air accident invistigations were then, and are now, held in camera, although reports are now published for all to read. This is something that Flight argued for on a number of occasions. As for technical aspects, I don't think that anything major came out of this particular accident, although lessons were learned and the results may have influenced the next stage of development. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is now the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was founded in 1915 as the Accidents Investigation Branch of the RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause[edit]

IIRC, this was one of the first (if not the first) air accident(s) where the effect of metal fatigue was implicated. The problem IIRC was due to initial difficulties in controlling the metallurgical properties of duralumin during manufacture. It was still a relatively new material for aeroplane construction at the time. The early duralumin also had problems with exfoliating, i.e., bits flaking away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.66.73 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meopham air disaster. 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/20101223205017/http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_G-A2.htm to http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_G-A2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]