Talk:Amy Johnson

INXS lyrics

I've removed the following bit from the Trivia section - "...while Australian band INXS include the song "Johnson's Aeroplane" on their album The Swing". The lyrics seem to me to be about a farmer called Johnson, and there's no mention of a relationship to Amy Johnson on Google, so unless it's mentioned on paper somewhere, it could safely stay out. - Gobeirne 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

HMS Hazelmere?

The ship in question was the AA Trawler HMS Haslemere. Hazelmere and Haslemere are different places. See, for example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series1/amy-johnson.shtml. I'll change the text to reflect. Shady18n (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Johnson was flying above low cloud which covered most of south east England on the day in question and rather then let down through cloud when unsure of her position - which was suicidal - when her fuel ran low she abandoned the aircraft and bailed out - which was the recommended thing to do in the circumstances. Unfortunately she was over the Thames Estuary rather than dry land and so she came down in the sea - which was freezing cold. She then succumbed to hypothermia before she could be rescued. The crew of Haslemere IIRC never saw the Oxford as it was above the cloud, the first thing they saw was a parachute descending some way off.

Preserved Oxford I wearing wartime colour scheme. Now displayed at the Imperial War Museum at RAF Duxford

The story about someone shooting her down is suspect as for one thing ATA pilots almost always flew alone - women pilots included - and therefore could not operate any radio (wireless) in any multi-engined aircraft. So the story of her being contacted by radio and failing to answer with the correct 'colours of the day' - which were usually replied to by firing signal cartridges or lighting one or more of three coloured lamps in the aircraft undersides, and not given over the radio - is likely wrong. In addition, the only such radio carried by non-fighter aircraft at the time was 'WT' only, i.e., morse. Only fighters had 'RT' - Radio Telephony, i.e., speech radio.

In any case, most Oxfords had bright canary-yellow undersides - see image right, as did all RAF training and prototype aircraft, and any AA position unfamiliar by 1941 with such aircraft shouldn't have been allowed live ammunition in the first place. Only Wireless Training aircraft had radios, none of the others. So all AA positions would have known it was pointless trying to radio any of them.

Nice story, but unlikely. Although it is just possible they shot it down after she had jumped. Otherwise why should she bail out over the estuary rather than over the land the gunners were on. If she was low enough to be seen and could herself see the land she would have headed for it and jumped over it rather than coming down in a cold sea.

Oh, I forgot to mention. You didn't send out the correct colours-of-the-day by radio because the Germans would be listening and could hear them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Statue in Home Town.

There is a life size statue of Amy Johnson in her home town of Hull. The statue can be seen outside the Prosect Shopping Centre in Hull Town Centre. Johnwrd (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Autobiography?

Did AJ ever write about her own life and flying career (like Amelia did in The Fun of It and Last Flight)? I'm very interested in the details of pioneering flights, and I'm currently looking for AJ's autobio/flight diaries, but I don't know where to find them. Thanks in advance, and clear skies to you! 67.170.215.166 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not heard of an autobiography, but if there are any flight diaries then Sewerby Hall would be the place to inquire as they have a large collection of most of the artefacts relating to her that were donated by her family. Keith D (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Amy wrote a short book called 'My Early Life'. There are also very good books by Midge Gillies (Queen of the Air) and David Luff (Enigma in the Sky). The RAF Museum in Hendon also have related documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsri (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bare URL

There is a bare URL at the bottom of the External Links on this page. It leads to a badly-written post about an unaccredited eye witness account to Amy's death. I am inclined to delete it, but wanted someone else's opinion before I did. --MyrtleGal (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it should be removed - if a book is produced then it can be added. Keith D (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks. MyrtleGal (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Titles

Shouldn't the feminine titles be used in this article.

Aviator, masculine

Aviatrix, feminine as used in American footage and articles about Amelia Earhart.

Executive, masculine.

Executress, feminine. AT Kunene (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language for reasons for current text. Keith D (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from there being a Wikipedia policy on the topic, in modern English, the use of male and female versions is becoming rare. Even actresses and waitresses are known as actors and waiters. A word like aviatrix is virtually unknown to the general population. Also I am not sure that I have ever heard the word executrix and I don't think it would be the feminine of executive but more likely executor.Dabbler (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it to be fairly bizarre that the word aviatrix is being used in this article, which for no particular reason brings attention to her gender when there is no need to. Her flying records were not only women's records. The use of the word aviatrix seems to diminish her achievements. The Word aviator has more than 50 times more hits that aviatrix on google. From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision", if anything, the use of the word aviatrix decreases clarity and precision. RichTBiscuit (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The term is period accurate, used only once and was the result of a discussion about the terminology that reflected the period. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We need absolute consistency when referring to all the female aviators on wikipedia. The aviator article itself claims, "The term aviatrix (aviatrice in French), now archaic, was formerly used for a female aviator". Why should we cling to an archaic term that no one uses and few seem to understand. the terminology needs to be consistent throughout all of the aviation articles and throughout the same article. Using an archaic term once in an article and then using the modern equivalent is pointless. It is enough that that aviatrix is mentioned in the aviators article. RichTBiscuit (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is some groundswell of other support, this is essentially a "non-issue" as it is only used once, does not predominate and is there to provide context. (LOL: Please be sure you dismount properly when you come off your high horse.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is a "non-issue" then why have you gone out of your way to include a note on the Amy Johnson page. All i'm saying is that there is no need to have the term aviatrix, because it is potentially confusing and completely unnecessary. It seems to be enough that the term aviatrix is mentioned in the aviators page, which describes it as archaic. I don't understand your longing to have archaic words represented in a page to keep the language "period accurate",while doing so sacrifices consistency and understanding. As you said, "aviator means aviator", and in the introduction there is no need to reinforce that she is a woman, it is clear that this is the case. As she is famous because of her gender it should be noted (as you have done - and should probably be in the introduction) that she was the first woman to fly solo from Britain to Australia, which sounds better than first female pilot. I also think that this should be the case on the Amelia Earhart page, that she was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean - this keeps it consistent with how we talk about other female specific achievements on other pages like Valentina Tereshkova, "the first woman to have flown in space", not the first female cosmonaut in space. The fact that the term is period accurate should make no difference, authoress is also a dated and period accurate term but i dont see anyone rushing to include it in the Charlotte Bronte page. RichTBiscuit (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I support keeping the single mention of the term aviatrix. Johnson made the term famous and it is period-correct. Removing it now, just because the term has fallen out of favour, seems to be a form of historical revisionism. It wasn't an insult at the time and the article would be less accurate and less complete without mention of it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If the general consensus is that 'aviatrix' should be used once in the introduction for historical integrity, then this should be included with a note, like the one that is there now, saying that aviatrix is a period accurate description. (Either that or remove the reference to aviatrix being an archaic term on the aviators page, but i agree that it is archaic, or at least very dated). Whatever the consensus, it should be made consistent across all of the female aviator pages, of the same time period. (Either way the mention of her being the first woman to fly solo from Britain to Australia in the note should be removed as it already mentions this in the main article) RichTBiscuit (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the arbitrary change was already made, I added a note to the reader but there is real difference between calling Amy an aviator and indicating that as an aviatrix, she set records. Aviator means aviator, aviatrix defines as a female aviator, and despite the contention that the term is archaic, it is only derived from 1925–1930, and is found in all dictionaries as a common term that is still in use. It boils down to the same argument as "actress" which was used to define a role for a female actor and is a term that continues in use to this day: Note the Academy Awards. FWiW, the term "aviatrix" for both this article and Amelia Earhart was accepted as a one-time usage for period relevance, and added/discussed by an admin. BTW, the lede is a means of summarizing the article and often includes salient points. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

The tautological statement that, "aviator means aviator" is truly pointless, aviator means the pilot of an aircraft regardless of whether the pilot is an airman or an airwoman (from Chambers and Oxford Dictionary). Ok, archaic is too strong a word but to say that it is not at least dated, is simply wrong. You say that all dictionaries contain "aviatrix" as a term that is still in common use but the Oxford online dictionary describes it as dated (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/aviatrix?q=aviatrix). In fairness it also describes the term "aviator" as dated, but arguing that aviator is as commonly used as aviatrix is laughable. It doesn't boil down to the same argument as actress because that is a term understood by everyone whereas aviatrix just isn't. Being well and truly pedantic, the use of the term aviatrix leads to less precision in the Amelia Earhart article, "Earhart was the first aviatrix to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean", because it allows for the fact that a woman in a profession other than that of an aviator could have flown across the atlantic (as stupid as that scenario sounds) whereas using "the first woman" would not have this problem). Again, if the desire of the majority is that "aviatrix" should be used once for period relevance, then I think this reasoning should be explained in a note to go along with the term, and this should also be the case for all the other female aviators of the same period. BTW, the intro should contain salient points, but the point you're talking about is actually at the bottom of the page in the notes section, perhaps something that important should have its own sentence in the intro. RichTBiscuit (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We clearly should use "aviator" (or better, "pilot"), not "aviatrix." First, it's archaic. We don't use period-specific language in other articles, why would we use it here. Second, and most importantly, apart from violating the essay WP:GENDER, it clearly violates WP:MOS: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision" We can do so here with clarity and precision, so case closed. TJRC (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the use of aviatrix anywhere in the article, unless it happened to occur in a contemporary quotation. As far as I can see that is not the case here. Dabbler (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the term Aviatrix should be completely expunged from this page and also the Amelia Earhart page because there seems to be very few reputable sources that use the term. These sources all use either pilot or aviator - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18670292, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175680/Amelia-Earhart, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305255/Amy-Johnson, http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/hull_history_centre/our_collections/hull_people/amyjohnson.aspx, http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/amy_johnson.aspx. If neither the BBC or Encyclopedia Britannica is using the term then I don't see why it should be on wikipedia. I also think that pilot should be used in reference to Amy Johnson because she worked for the Air Transport Auxiliary, and her designation would have been as a pilot. the Air Transport Auxiliary page itself describes 166 pilots (female) not 166 aviatrices. RichTBiscuit (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely expunged is a bit harsh as the term is clearly associated with Amy Johnson and other female aviators. I dont think we have a rule that says we should ignore contemporary use of words and terms. References can be found of the term is more recent usage, the London Times used the term to describe the Duchess of York in 1987 and the Times in 2006 Fourteen of about 130 women pilots of the ATA lost their lives during the war, one of the fatal casualties being the celebrated aviatrix Amy Johnson. MilborneOne (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what FWiW Bzuk has done on both the Amy Johnson and Amelia Earhart page, in replacing aviatrix with a more modern and commonly used term, but referencing the fact that Aviatrix has period significance in a note. Aviatrix does occasionally crop up in modern sources but this is vastly outweighed by either aviator or pilot. RichTBiscuit (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The word Aviatrix appears 842 times in Wikipedia, so clearly it is in general use within Wikipedia without appearing to be an issue. Although I appreciate Bzuks effort to compromise I cant see any valid reason to hide the term in this or any of the 800 other articles. All that is being asked is that the original one mention in the lead be restored as it was before, no more. MilborneOne (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

How many times does aviator or pilot appear? The valid reason, at least in my eyes, is that the term is obscure and dated. Although you, Bzuk and me have found modern sources that use the term, I found a fox news article that referred to her as an aviatrix and a flier, there are numerous words to refer to the pilot of an aircraft but the most clear and commonly used should be used. I think that aviatrix is obscure and dated enough to make the intro less clear and precise in what it is trying to put across, and using it only once only decreases clarity. RichTBiscuit (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - as long as the term is explained then it adds to the historical correctness of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Add

To the above lets add

   Executrix......Vive La Differance.

So lets get it right shall we? AT Kunene (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Aviatrix revisited

The 'Titles' section above has a discussion about including the term "aviatrix" and the balance of editors in that discussion are against using it, citing Wikipedia policy and the essay on Gender-neutral language. There are some arguments for including the term there, but I'm not seeing a compelling policy-based reason offered for why we should continue to use such an archaic and thoroughly outdated term. When this article was first created, Johnson was first referred to as a "pilot", then an "aviator" before it was changed to "aviatrix" without any discussion. It has since changed back and forth a few times. The manual of style is very clear on this and directs us to "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". Other reference works have ceased using this term and we should as well. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 22:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion which was only a few month ago left the term aviatrix in place for somebody who is well known as an aviatrix, you will need to gain a consensus here to change it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, reinserting the term aviatrix went against the consensus from that discussion. Furthermore, there are policy-based reasons not to use the term. WP:RECENTISM doesn't force us to use antiquated terminology. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 23:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with gender neutral language. English Wikipedia uses modern English. Aviatrix is archaic terminology. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As has been said before it is certainly well used on wikipedia with over 800 uses of the term so clearly part of modern English usage here. MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

While other stuff may exist (and perhaps we should have an RFC for the use of the term), the term is demonstrably not a part of modern English. Our own pilot (aircraft) article calls the term 'archaic' and most style guides recommend not using the term (the Columbia Guide to Standard American English for one).

As Gobōnobō points out, the MOS on WP:GENDER is crystal clear on this. It even gives "aviatrix" as one of the examples to be avoided where possible, and appears to have done so for years. Why anybody is still arguing is quite beyond me. If people don't like that, they need to take it up with the MOS community, not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

One point I would concede is that she is also famous for being the first famous aviatrix. It should be easy enough to reference and explain that, but we would need to be clear that this "aviator" is famous for being famous. Such usage is consistent with WP:GENDER. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:GENDER is an essay it is not policy or guideline, it it not mentioned or linked from the MoS. I fail to see why one of the main subjects who anybody would relate to the term aviatrix is being singled out when all the other hundreds of other mentions in wikipedia are not. Also a lot of effort has been taken recently to revert gender neutral terminology with many female actors being re-classed as actresses. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I refer to my earlier comments which basically say that aviatrix is an outdated term, and not widely understood, let alone used. If the word needs an explanatory note then it doesn't belong in the article except in in a direct quotation from a contemporary source. Dabbler (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@MilborneOne. Technically you are correct about WP:GENDER, however it seeks to advise on applying the MOS section on Gender-neutral_language, which states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." You may take my comments to apply accordingly. With respect to the 800: a journey of 800 miles begins with a single step. Yes, words like "actress" are universal enough to be mostly harmless, but "aviatrix" is less common. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that say Glenda Jackson is not an actor but an actress, but none for saying that Amy Johnson was not an aviator but an aviatrix. (I know it is not tactful to point to the Encyclopaedia Britannica here, but [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305255/Amy-Johnson its online web page puts the title "Amy Johnson (English Aviator)" (sic) in your web browser title bar.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

OK understand your point but the term is correct for describing 1930s female aviators, I would agree that the term would not be used today but changing past usage appears from the mixed arguments from those that will want to remove it a bit of revisonism and I dont like it. I still dont understand why the need to remove it from Johnson first, I would be more convinced if any such campaign started with other well known female aviators like Amelia Earhart or more universal request for comment. . Not reliable but "Amelia Earhart Aviatrix" gives 25,000 ghits against Johnson's 6000 mentions. Interseting to see the American media still using the term Aviatrix about Earhart as late as 2012 so clearly not that archaic when discussing 1930/1940s aviation (google news has 70 uses of the term Aviatrix in the last few months). MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@MilborneOne. In my case, someone posted on a Project talk page and that led me here. In Amelia Earhart's case she gets far more ghits with "Amelia Earhart" aviator than she does with "Amelia Earhart" aviatrix. Not all 1930s epithets are appropriate today, for example calling a foreign-born or racially distinct person a ****** (my own censorship), so that argument needs treating with caution. I would suggest that here the modern usage is appropriate for the lead "opener" but that the alternative usage does deserve a (referenced) mention. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: There is no policy saying that we have to use the same languages as our sources (unless directly quoting). Indeed, we have numerous articles about people based primarily on foreign-language sources, so I don't agree with your argument that it is revisionism. Regarding the use in modern sources, it does look like there are some modern uses, but the preponderance of sources use "aviator" in association with Amy Johnson. A Google Book search of "Amy Johnson", aviatrix, -wikipedia gives 719 results, versus 1880 results for "Amy Johnson", aviator, -wikipedia. Even if you look at sources from the era, it looks like about as many use "woman aviator" as "avaitrix" (per Google Book Advanced Search). Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Steelpilow I dont have a problem with your suggestion but perhaps the original note that was earlier in the article that this was a period term for a female aviator could be added back. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  I would have no problem with that, one reason I slipped back in a "starter for ten" mention of the term lower down. I am sure my edit can be improved upon, but I didn't feel like making a bigger change myself until the dust has settled a little more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just adding my support here for gender-neutral language and a modern vocabulary. We ought not to follow an antiquated vocabulary (except when quoting) if it's likely to be inappropriate for some reason, or harder for readers to understand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is still some conjecture as to the term "aviatrix" being deemed arcane. The terminology is still current in aviation literature. FWiW FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems other Wiki users disagree on the 'arcane'ness of the term: List of aviatrices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well to be accurate, ONE editor has recently written a badly formatted list (sorted by first name not last name for example) using the very unusual word "aviatrices". Dabbler (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The term aviatrix is fine, being both appropriate and mellifluous. See Cape Town to Cairo in a Forties plane: Meet Britain's daredevil female aviatrix and The Lady Who Flew Africa: The Aviatrix for examples of current usage. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Johnson was the first member of the Air Transport Auxiliary to die in service"

This claim is not accurate. I believe the first female ATA member to die in service was Elsie Joy Davison (nee Muntz) killed in training 8 July 1940 (http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/2450523/DAVISON,%20ELSIE%20JOY)

Frothelhorse (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the statement as it wasn't referenced, if anybody can come up with a reliable reference then is can be put back but seems unlikely per cwgc reference. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amy Johnson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Add inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Copy-edit for WP:MOS, e.g. non-breaking spaces before units of measure Keith D 19:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amy Johnson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.alstewart.com/blog.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724170047/http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707055345/http://tomcampbellblack2.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack2.150m.com

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) 03:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up

I have suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Curtis-Taylor that that article be replaced by a redirect to this one and a sentence or two in the article here. What do people think? --John (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this article at all, probably not worth mentioning. We dont mention any other aviators who have used her name in connection with a England-Australia flight. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Have there been many? If, as I suspect this is quite a commonplace exploit in the modern age, that is all the more reason to delete the other article. I'm not fussy about this being the target of a redirect. --John (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ground Engineer...

Not sure who runs this wikipedia page, however it would be very nice to know what a "Ground Engineer" is..

""She was introduced to flying ... she became the first British woman to obtain a ground engineer's "C" licence."

see lots of referneces made to this title and license, but nothing in wikipedia about it!

206.116.166.9 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amy Johnson. 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/20120131153022/http://nfsa.gov.au/sounds-australia-supplement/our-heroes-air/ to http://www.nfsa.gov.au/sounds-australia-supplement/our-heroes-air/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081018192618/http://www.cometracer.co.uk/Default.aspx to http://www.cometracer.co.uk/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131153022/http://nfsa.gov.au/sounds-australia-supplement/our-heroes-air/ to http://www.nfsa.gov.au/sounds-australia-supplement/our-heroes-air/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amy Johnson. 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/20120315124343/http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/hull_history_centre/our_collections/hull_people/amyjohnson.aspx to http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/hull_history_centre/our_collections/hull_people/amyjohnson.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107124415/http://www.queenoftheair.co.uk/ to http://www.queenoftheair.co.uk/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amy Johnson. 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/20120917003512/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/amy_johnson.aspx?page=6 to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/amy_johnson.aspx?page=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904122412/http://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/leas/sutton/schools/amy-johnson/homepage/home/ to http://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/leas/sutton/schools/amy-johnson/homepage/home/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723035308/http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/2011/06/women-in-aerospace-newsletter-june11/ to http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/2011/06/women-in-aerospace-newsletter-june11/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210534/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/british_heritage/3026906.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/british_heritage/3026906.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Amy Johnson portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Amy Johnson portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Shooting down controversy

Most ATA flights were made without radios (or indeed navigation instruments) fitted. The pilots had to manage with just a map and compass. Is there any independent evidence as to whether Amy's aircraft even had a radio with which to send the alleged "wrong signal", or that she would have been given any special recognition codes? There were certainly incidents of ATA flights been fired on because they didn't (couldn't) respond to radio hails, but a claim of receiving a wrong code would throw the whole "shoot down" story into considerable doubt. Markjeff (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be strange to remove a radio from an aircraft used for radio and navigation training just for a ferry flight and put another one back in when it arrived at Oxford. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ATA pilots did, notoriously, have to fly without radio, which made navigation difficult. See https://atamuseum.org/ See also 'Why Can't We Have Radio?' by former ATA pilot Michael Murtagh, Aeroplane Monthly, August 1974, pp.310-313. (The article was actually written in 1945, describing the author's crash due to bad weather when flying an Anson over Cumberland. He was not found for three days and died of his injuries in 1946.) If Amy had had radio, she might not have got lost. The shootdown story is improbable as the 58th (Kent) Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment RA, the unit in question, did not have any guns anywhere near Herne Bay. Their batteries seem to have been considerably further west, protecting the London approaches, at Sittingbourne, Erith and Bromley. They did move around occasionally, but the only other recorded locations are Allhallows and Dartford, again much further west than Herne Bay. They may have fired on an aircraft, but it's unlikely to have been Amy's and if it failed to flash the Colours of the Day it may have been German. http://amyjohnsonartstrust.co.uk/her-life/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Home_Counties_Brigade,_Royal_Field_Artillery The convoy ships did not report any ack-ack. Given the time Amy had been airborne, the presumption is that the Oxford simply ran out of fuel and Amy bailed out -- the normal procedure in that emergency if you couldn't see anywhere to put down -- without realising she was over the sea. As this means she couldn't see the ground, it also means the AA gunners could not have had her aircraft continuously in view as the shootdown story suggests. Khamba Tendal (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes needed?

I think this article could do with a bit of additional input. I'll go though in the next few days and see if I can help. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I tuned up the pop culture bit. I happened to love “Flying Sorcery.” I think that “friendly fire” theory discussed in the thread above is rather dubious and I’d want to see additional verification, or have it mentioned if the theory was debunked. Also, there is a need for some image cleanup, the gallery needs to go and there is “sandwich” of images elsewhere. But I don’t want to make the call what to keep and what to dump. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Parked for now

Not seeing a source for this. I'll look more later today.

The aircraft is preserved in the Science Museum, London. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Took care of this and did some copyediting. I'll do more later. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Danish

Might be worth mentioning that she was Anglo-Danish. The family's real name was Jorgensen, anglicised as Johnson. Her father was born in Fyn, Denmark, to a Danish father and Hull mother.Silverwhistle (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Death theory

Here is a publically accessible source for Tom Mitchell's story of how he may have shot down Amy Johnson: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/06/6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.160.160 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Video link needs repair

The video link for 'Amy Johnson flying to Cape Town seeking husband's record' does not work and needs editing GTO3DEUCES (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)