Talk:Aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Aviation v air transport 2 Links 3 What is the main article for human flight? 4 Aviation stub 5 ATC 6 Quality e.g. Stealth 7 Image overload 8 summarise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and diesembarkation of passengers 9 Aviation user box

[edit] Aviation v air transport

What is the difference between "Aviation" and "Air transport"? I propose that these two articles should be merged. Do I have a seconder? --GrahamN 00:10 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I think that air transport is only a part of aviation. I added a partial list of the different aspects of aviation to the aviation entry. Jghiii 01:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

You may well be right, but I can't at the moment think what the difference is. Please could you give me an example of something in aviation that is not to do with air transport? --GrahamN 02:06 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Well, to me, "air transport" would mean carrying passengers to a destination. Some might argue that air cargo, like fedex, flying tigers, bulk airfeight, etc. is also air transport. I don't agree, but for this discusion let's say that is. Even combining these things, there is still a whole myriad of other aviation activities.

For example...

There's recreational aviation. That is, personal aircraft that are used for things like sightseeing, or just the pleasure of flying. This would be with aircraft like small single-engine planes, restored vintage planes, ultralights, and even gliders.

Then there's observation and research. Police departments all over the country use aircraft to investigate crimes. And research groups, like universities and NASA use aircraft to collect information about the atmosphere and other areas of science. There's Search and Rescue.

Agricultural application (aka crop dusting) is a really big business.

And of course there's military combat operations.

I think that all of these are not covered by the term air transport.

Air transport, plus all these others, plus a few I've probably forgotten, combined make up the category of aviation. Jghiii 04:03 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with user Jghiii; there are many aircraft uses that do not characterize air transport.

Where is the aviation-modern aviation merging discussion? I can't find this but I think we should merge the two, since aviation itself characterize a modern invention. Jesvane

And upon all things, it would be much quicker to simply place all the Articles having major relation to Aviation (Kittyhawk, Commercial Transportation, etc.) unser the simple topic of Aviation. Its much quicker to search for, and it does sum it up quite quicly and well.

I disagree. These articles should remain separate, linked from Aviation as appropriate. This is the way a Wiki encyclopedia should work, combing the virtues of an encyclopedia with the advantages of hypertext. treesmill 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Checking more and more on all of the Wiki aritcles, quite a few are stubs or otherwise. If I have freetime, I'll edit some and add extra information of possible. Otherwise, its still suggestive that we merge a good amount of them to reduce confusion. Some, if not most, of the Aviation Articles are very similar, and they don't tend to be very extreme on size. Simply merging one or two could make it a quicker and more informative read, and possibly prevent it from being a stub.

[edit] Links

OK, I've added a few links. Maybe some kind of seperate AviationWiki would be better for that, but c'est la vie, I say. I'll put up a few more pages (IFR/VFR/...) User:Qwitchibo

Isn't this See Also section getting a little too big? It's basically just another "List of aviation topics". I suggest shortening it to just "list of..." and mabye some other topics related to aviation but not aviation as such. (for example "Meteorology")Trevor MacInnis 05:11, 26 Jun 2004

I intend to write on `Personnel Licensing' - How the licenses are issued to the personnel linked with the operation of aircraft. My request is to have `Personnel Licensing' as one topic under aviation. I am new to the wikipedia contributions and forgive me if i make some errors.

[edit] What is the main article for human flight?

What is the main article for human/mechanical flight? Human flight and mechanical flight do not redirect anywhere at present. Aviation and aeronautics are both stubs. The aeronautics article seems to have a dodgy definition ("aircraft navigation") and to be confused whether it is a superset, subset or synonym for aviation. The fullest article I've found so far is aviation history, which one would intuitively presume was only about the historical aspects rather than being the main article. Nurg 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation stub

Is this for real? "1 in 3 flights in the 1980's went down" and "Aviation started in Portland, Oregon"?

Surely this could be updated to contain some real facts?

Thank you for noticing this obvious vandalism. I've removed it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Oregon and learned to fly there. The contention that aviation "started" in Portland is absurd. The one in three crash rate is equally ridiculous unless it's taken out of context from some extremely narrow perspective; both were properly removed.

ref. air transport, heartily concur that it is not accurately regarded as a synonym for all aviation. Apart from recreational ('general') aviation is sport flying specifically (including aerobatics). Air transport is an important component of military aviation but has nothing to do with most combat functions of aircraft.

Feel free to ask me about aviation subjects. I work and write in the field. btillman3@cox.net

[edit] ATC

The last bit of the ATC section includes text that is not directly related to ATC: security and safety.

I propose creating "Aviation Security" and "Aviation Safety" sections on this page and moving that text to those sections.

Thoughts on the content of these sections?

My intitial thoughts:

Aviation Security - Need for security (maybe list of major terrorist acts against aircraft) - Current strategies (air marshals, airport security, restricted airspace, improved cockpit doors)

Aviation Safety - notable changes over the years - Agencies responsible (U.S. & EU) --Jerelabs 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the ATC section here at all? It has its own article, all that is needed is a wikilink. treesmill 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality e.g. Stealth

This article really needs a major rewrite. I'll mention just a couple of points as examples: Stealth - the one direct example given, U-2, is not stealth technology (though it did fly pretty high, it was clearly visible on the Soviet radars). The SR-71 in the photo for the Stealth section is also not Stealth (according to WP:SR-71 it ironically had one of the largest Radar signatures of any aircraft, detectable at several hundred miles away, due to its Radar-reflecting hot exhaust). The point about heat due to high speeds is valid for all supersonic aircraft, Stealth has more to do with its Radar evasiveness than its speed. Also the statement about US fighter aicraft being 'dominated by Lockheed Martin' sounds strange. Again this article needs a serious rewrite; I would suggest for the writer to try to check out facts and use links to existing excellent articles already on WP. Crum375 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a major rewrite of the article, but I didn't do much with the military aviation section — could someone who cares/knows more about military aviation take a look at that? I think there's still too much detail there, compared to the other sections. David 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the military section back down a ways... now it looks a little too sparse for me. I think the intro paragraph could have some more information and still be relevant. I do like just having a list of types and examples, though, if people want more information they can dig for it. The information that was in there before (HUD, G-suit, radar cross section, etc.) is a bit much for the scope of this article. Phydeaux 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article still needs attention. It starts by suggesting that aviation "refers to the activities surrounding human flight and the aircraft industry". Aviation is not confined to human flight, unmanned aircraft have been significant since ww2 and are becoming very much more so. The 'aircraft industry' is just one part of aviation. It is full of information that belongs, and is in most cases duplicated in, other less general articles. The sections on civil aviation, general aviation, military aviation and ATC are all better covered elsewhere, all they need is links. It is questionable whether it should include any reference to space flight, since the word implies airborne flight, though again a link is probably reasonable. It needs a serious prune. treesmill 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image overload

(copied from User talk:Jeffreythane#Aviation)

I have reverted (most of) your edits to this article. It is an article about aviation in general, not commercial aviation in particular. The article seems to already have sufficient photos (as in roughtly one per main section), and it's worth remembering what Wikipedia is not (Collections of photographs or media files). Probably a good idea to discuss the photos on the article talk page to get the opinion of others. Thanks/wangi 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] summarise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and diesembarkation of passengers

summrise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and disembarkation of passengers and describe the documention to be carried on domestic and international flights.

• I vote no: that's way out of place in a general article about aviation. David 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation user box

Aviation fans, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.

{{Template:User aviation}}

Note that this is attached to the Wikipedians interested in aviation category, and so placing this userbox on your page also adds you to this category.--PremKudva^Talk 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the actual userbox and just leaving the code, since adding the user box here adds this talk page to the Wikepedians iterested in Aviation category.--PremKudva^Talk 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)