Talk:UK lawyer comments on court case against Boeing over London jet crash

Add topic
Active discussions

OR notesEdit

Comments obtained by interview and forwarded to scoop @ wikinewsie. BTW, of the sources listed, all are there for background that has already been checked in reviews of the three articles in related, and the wording here is based on the originals. Therefore, the only one you really need to check is the linked act; the quote I used is quite early on. One or two things uncited - the bit about the House of Lords being the highest court of appeal, for example - but these have all been looked over by the lawyer quoted and he agrees upon the accuracy from a legal viewpoint. Note that he checked his reference to the Clyde Helicopters case and discovered that actually it was King v Bristow in which that decision was made; accordingly, that part of the article does not match what I sent you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 914413 [Passed]Edit

Image CaptionEdit

I'm not A&P Certificated, so I don't know what I'm looking at in the picture. Now, I can gather from context clues in the artice that it's likely an ice-laden fuel injector of some kind, but I haven't the foggiest if that's accurate. Perhaps someone could add in what part is actually being looked at in layman's terms? --CyberStormAlpha (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

" passing oil pipes through the fuel flow." It's just a bunch of small oil pipes criss-crossing through a big fuel pipe. I'm open to suggestions for how to explain that better, though. Did you get what a fuel/oil heat exchanger was from the article? If so, all that's needed is to make clear in the caption that its the same part. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just to be clear, that is a very oversimplified version of how the part works. So far as I can tell, the reality seems to involve a network of pipes for both, but the basic concept remains the same. I changed the caption based on my assumption above. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, real life ran away with me for a tad. I had to re-read the paragraph rescribing what the FOHE did, and still had to google the part itself to fully understand it. Maybe a slight re-working of the paragraph in question could help, as the final sentence describes what the part does. So, the order would be: icing of FOHE, purpose of FOHE, and why icing was bad. The caption for the picture could then be simply: 'a fuel/oil heat exchanger with significant icing' or something to that effect? I guess it is a tad late, now, anyways... --CyberStormAlpha (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Return to "UK lawyer comments on court case against Boeing over London jet crash" page.