Talk:Aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

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:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[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.

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)

[edit] China and aviation history

I removed the claim that the Chinese invented aviation with kites — it would be just as easy to claim that arrows, spears, boomerangs, paper darts, or even thrown stones were the first flying machines. Likewise, the Chinese hot air lanterns, while they float, are not really relevant to aviation, and again, there are probably similar objects in other cultures. I did leave in the story of the Chinese man flying in the kite, and added the Greek legend of Icarus with it. David 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to remove these parts,like Kongming lantern,while it is not so sophisticated as the modern french Hot air balloon,it is in nature the first lighter than air flying machine.And manned Kite,why not a ancient glider?I cann't find the diffrence betwwen the chinese manned kite and Armen Firman's gliders.It's all the same in nature.Furthermore the greek Icarus was a legend or myth,if we took account the chinese myth who could fly,I will find the chinese claimed legendary flying myth far ancient than greek Icarus.Don't mix up legend and history.--Ksyrie 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And tell me why the chinese hot air balloon Kongming lantern are not relevant to aviation?If you can find the same objects in other cultures,I will be glad to write it down in this article.Don't mix up arrow or thrown stones to aviation,we here talk about can really fly,at least in air for minutes not seconds.A chinese kite can fly in air for days,why not a flymachine?--Ksyrie 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Many cultures in history have built devices that can move or launch things through the air, from boomerangs to arrows and spears to the lantern that you mention, and listing all of them would be excessive (I believe that China also invented the gunpowder rocket, which would be at least as relevant as the lantern). Note that I did leave the mention of the kite together with Armen Firman's glider, just trimming it down so that all of the pre-modern section takes only a paragraph (this is a history summary, after all, not the main history article). I haven't had an opportunity to read critical commentary on human kite yet, and it's not clear to me from your notes whether the flight took place around 500 BCE or 500 CE. If it was 500 BCE, I think we all need to understand how reliable independent scholars think the source is -- that's why I put it with Icarus for now, until we have more information. David 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've just given the article another rewrite, trying to find a compromise. The lantern is still in, but I'm trying to keep all pre-modern aviation to a single paragraph (since this is just a summary), and have removed the lantern and kite-festival pictures, since they're only marginally relevant to aviation as a whole (I'd be more inclined to include the kite photos in an article on aerodynamics). David 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Boomerang are not realy flying machine.Something like an arrow.At least the real flight should be in air for 10 minutes.--Ksyrie 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By that criterion, the Wright Brothers' first flight was not a real flight. David 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More generally, we can manipulate the definition flying machine so that prehistoric humans invented it, Australia invented it, China invented it, early Islam invented it, France invented it, or the U.S. invented it (among many others), but choosing any of those as the true beginning of aviation simply lets the article become a battleground for competing nationalist agendas, and we don't really want that in a Wikipedia article. Let's just list a few of the innovations without getting into that kind of debate. I agree that we should acknowledge kites and the kongming lantern, but only briefly, and not at the cost of excluding other equally early or earlier contributions. David 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing external links

I've removed the external links section — it's a magnet for promotional link spam, and nothing there really had a lot of value for a general article on aviation (the link to the glossary and the PBS series were pretty marginal). David 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tightening up environmental impact section

DPM64 raised a good point about compacting this section a bit, since the article is an overview. I agree with removing some of the more specific statistics and references. I tried to make DPM64's edit of this section even denser and more economical, though I do feel that the specific information about CO₂ and ozone is indispensable and have replaced it in condensed form. I appreciate the flourish that "hot air balloon" adds to the opening of the section; I modified this to emphasize the point it makes, which is that the whole spectrum of powered flight produces emissions. Cyrusc 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I've done a bit of rearranging to keep related information grouped together, but hopefully I haven't let out any of the crucial details. I've also changed the terminology a bit — a "commercial aircraft", for example, could be a Piper Cub taking people sightseeing for hire as well as a 747 on its way across the Atlantic, so I tried to get at what I think you meant (very large aircraft). Note also that contrails can form behind props as well as jets — they were common behind bombers in WWII — but they don't form under all climate conditions (I once read a military weather manual that talked about how to avoid leaving contrails). David 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there's now a main article on Aviation and climate change, I trimmed this section down fairly aggressively — a long discussion is out of place in an overview article. David (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Sorry, I was trying to see who is in the WIkiProject Aviation members category and there is no one there, am I the only one using the userbox ? I feel odd. Other matter, I found that the PPL article is quite short and can be merged perhaps, I also found a good description of certifications at Professional certification, shouldn't be the certifications merged in one page and link from others? TopTopView 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why my writing comes out in small? TopTopView 10:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality assessment

I've promoted this article from "Start" to "B" on the quality scale — it's the ideal length for a survey article, is well-structured, covers all the major topics, and is adequately cited. I think it would be a mistake to go into any more detail in the subsections, since we have links to the main articles already. David 13:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed

Under list of Major Aircraft Manufacturers there is a sub note of Tupelov merging with UABC which needs a citation or source, i will search for it and update as necessary. Will also add a few more companies to that list.Rgp2130 (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great. Note that the list includes only civil transport aircraft manufacturers, not manufacturers of military, business, or private aircraft. David (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've moved the external link See how it flies: a new spin on the perceptions, procedures, and principles of flight from here to the Flight article. I think it's important to keep this article focused on aviation as an historical/cultural/political phenomenon, so a pilot-training link didn't really belong here (even though it's a very good one). David (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures

There are far too many pictures right now for an article of this length. I'd like to trim it down to at most one picture for each section. Please let me know if people have any preferences. David (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "military condensation" pic which to me is a "pretty" pic but just padding and had a meaningless caption. Also I've respaced the black and white pics at the top. I don't think the article now looks crowded (it has 9 pics) so I would not support removal of any - Adrian Pingstone (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record-setting flights

I removed an anonymously-contributed section on general aviation record-setting flights, since it's out of place in a general survey article (and could easily grow to be enormous). David (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Military occupations

I think that the Aviation article is too broad to put into this category — it's a whole field of endeavor rather than a single occupation. Would it make more sense to add articles about specific aviation-related occupations like aviator instead? David (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Aviation in the military covers a very broad range of occupations. There are a few of the current USAF/USN specialties, but not in any comprehensive way. I was hoping that by placing the broad subject into the category I could encourage others to create more articles.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First powered flight

We need to avoid any agendas about the first powered flight — it can get especially touchy because some countries (e.g. Brazil, New Zealand) have their own national champions to compete with the American Wright Brothers, and it gets down to a national-pride battle, which doesn't belong here (for the record, I'm Canadian, so I don't have a national stake in this). The Wright Bros are the most widely-accepted, but I've linked to the article on the controversy (First flying machine) to make it clear that they're not the only candidates, and to let readers dive into the details if they're interested. Editing the article to say that they made the "second" powered flight doesn't help things, because it suggests a certainty that doesn't exist for any of the candidates. David (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to revert the Second flight thing, but your solution is much better. --McSly (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)