Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AVIATION)
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(13 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(1 more...)

Articles for creation

(3 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

Category:Nose-mounted intake jet fighter[edit]

Wikipedian2024 created Category:Nose-mounted intake jet fighter earlier today. I'm not sure that categories for fighter aircraft based on the placement of jet engine intakes is particularly useful, and is probably a bit too narrow in scope for a Wikipedia category. Thoughts? - ZLEA T\C 22:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also barely comprehensible as a term. Intakes aren't 'mounted'. An intake is a hole to let the air in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More technically known as a pitot intake. Categories without parent articles are in trouble from day 1. It's over-categorisation per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Nimbus said. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reminds me of the category "pink-spotted twin-engined biplanes" (or something similar) that was once proposed - in joke, I assume. These "categories" never made much sense to me, anyway, but of course to each their own. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was biplane tractors with unicorn sprinkles. I have nominated the category for deletion, linking to this discussion but feel free to comment there (or thereabouts). The creator should be aware as they were pinged at the top of this discussion and should also be watching the category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My consent/support was added. And yes, your memory is obviously stronger than mine :). Cheers! Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category has just been deleted (2 April), the discussion was closed as delete over two weeks ago and the category must have been in some hidden backlog pile waiting for deletion. To get it deleted I had to add a speedy template that linked to the closed deletion discussion, crazy! Just for info if we have to nominate other categories, the system is not intuitive (to me at least!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing controversies section[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Boeing#Intrigue/Conspiracies Section about the possible addition of a "Controversies" section to the article. This is primarily a response to the death of John Barnett (whistleblower) and other recent Boeing controversies, as well as a conspiracy theory that seems to be getting some attention. - ZLEA T\C 05:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improper flaps[edit]

I ran into this article while doing NPP, and I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't think this is a notable concept in and of itself, but I'm at a loss as to where to move the information or where to redirect the title. I think it's at least a plausible redirect. Trains are my thing more than planes, so I was hoping you folks would have ideas. Please ping me on reply as I don't watch this page. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this article Improper flaps should not exist at all, it can easily be integrated in the main "Flaps" article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be redirected to Preflight checklist as flaps is a check list item if they are a feature of the a/c type. Related but I couldn't find it here is the 'config (configuration) warning system' that more complicated aircraft generally have, horns and lights flashing etc if the throttles are advanced beyond a certain percentage with no flaps set. Landing gear warnings are related (low throttle, land flap set, gear not down etc). Many sailplanes with retractable gear have an aural warning system that alerts the pilot that the airbrakes are open but the gear is up. An overview article could be created but the systems vary. This subject falls under airmanship. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest moving to a new subsection in Flap_(aeronautics)#Principles_of_operation, titled say "Improper flap settings". Preflight checklist, as suggested above, does not cover the landing scenario. This page can then be deleted, as it is the setting which are improper, not the flaps themselves, and we do not normally maintain redirects for arbitrary phrases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is very vague and also not a term used in aviation. Flaps/slats is a pre-landing checklist item for some aircraft, my own memorised check list has flaps but they are not used until final approach. It's akin to being in the wrong gear in a car, we don't have an article for that (hopefully!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... pre-landing AND pre-takeoff! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Steelpillow, the information in this article seems like it would fit well there. Also Improper Flaps is not a common term in this way and I don't expect many people would be searching it. Therefore it would not meet the WP:POFR standard. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. Decided to nominate for deletion as I don't see any sourced content that can be merged elsewhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes "seasonal" service? (Take 2)[edit]

I see this subject was briefly discussed back in January [here], but no consensus was reached. I would like us to move forward with a consensus on this subject. Wiki is mostly used by ordinary people (in our case ordinary passengers) with no experience in the aviation world. Seasonal doesn't necessarily just mean summer or winter. There are four seasons. It could imply fall, spring, or any combination of the four. Which is why I am of the opinion that even a seasonal cut of 2 months, which i find to be substantial, should be indicated as such. A flight not operating for Q1 (January to March, such as in the case of the recent Delta seasonal suspensions) is quite significant. The average passenger consulting wikipedia would want to know that this flight is not operational year round. Now I agree with others that a cut of just 2 or 3 weeks should not be treated this way. But even then, what do we do? Do we leave the destination as year round, or do we add start and end dates to each of these -almost- year round destinations? What are your thoughts? Thenoflyzone (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence: Should the summary parameter include causes?[edit]

I would like to start a discussion regarding the template infobox aircraft occurrence. The discussion is on whether the summary parameter should include the causes of an accident.

On 27 March 2023, user DonFB started a discussion on Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence to ask whether there was a guidance or consensus on whether to include the officially-determined cause of an accident in the Summary field of the Aircraft Occurrence infobox linking a discussion on Talk:Colgan Air Flight 3407#Accident cause.

Prior to any of these discussions, the official explanation for the summary parameter was to include a Brief factual summary of the occurrence.

The problem with that explanation was that it did not specify what should be included in the summary leaving the emphasis on "brief".

Another problem with the explanation is due to the fact that some accidents have much more complex causes which makes summarizing an accident more difficult which can, at times, make summaries no longer "brief" as some of them included multiple causes and contributing factors such as [1]. A lot of articles use(d) the term pilot error in their summaries which while may be correct is also an oversimplification of what actually caused that accident and what led to it. Decisions pilots make are usually influenced by multiple factors.

Following the discussion between users DonFB and Ahunt, user Deeday-UK expressed his opinion:

[...] I would go one step further and explicitly discourage editors from adding causes to infobox summaries. Air accidents are complex events most of the times; accident reports almost invariably list multiple causes and contributing factors, which are impossible to summarize in a few words while still maintaining a NPOV. 'Pilot error' is the best example: the all-time favourite cause among editors, often added on its own even when it's clearly not the only factor. In my view, a summary should:

- First state what happened (e.g. that the aircraft crashed), which is often far from obvious, given article titles such as "XYZ Airlines Flight 123". - Then briefly describe the circumstances (on approach, at night, on take-off etc).

- Finally leave the causes for the article body, instead of cherry-picking some of them and trying to cram them into one line.

In many cases, 'Controlled flight into terrain' is all that's needed for the infobox summary. The Colgan crash could do with Stalled on approach, crashed into house, and so on, keeping it simple, concise and neutral.

Following this, without gaining an official consensus, user Deeday-UK changed the summary usage note [2] and added a hidden usage note to add in the infobox [3]. Following this, user Deeday-UK started editing numerous articles changing the summary while broadly stating: Trim summary per project consensus: summarize events and circumstances, leave the causes for the article body without actually gaining an official consensus.

The first time I became aware of this was when I removed the under investigation summary in the article 2018 Sapphire Aviation Bell UH-1 crash and replaced it with the term pilot error, [4]. My edit was soon reverted [5] without giving too much reason as to why. Following this, I reverted the edit performed [6] which was soon reverted by user Deeday-UK citing Trim summary per project consensus: summarize facts and circumstances, leave the causes for the article body [7]. I tried finding where this was discussed and found the template talk page in which I assumed that this was an official consensus, and with the template history displaying last edited in 2019, I assumed that the discussion must have been a follow-up to the decision while not actually realizing that I wasn't on the correct history page being on [8] instead of [9].

Just around a few months ago, I started editing the summaries of multiple articles to be consistent with the usage note when I was notified by user RecycledPixels, on the 9th of May on my talk page, that there wasn't an official consensus regarding the summary usage note and had consequently challenged and reverted both edits performed by user Deeday-UK on the template doc, also messaging user Deeday-UK on his talk page regarding his changes to multiple summaries [10].

So my question regarding this discussion is whether the summary parameter should include accident/incident causes and (if so,) how should the usage note be worded? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the summary blank would be missing out the 'what' and 'why' of Who what when where why, it would look odd if the summary is included in the lead section but not in the infobox. If I visit a blue linked accident article that I'm not familiar with I look for the precis and cause in the infobox, I would expect other readers to do the same. If the cause can't be easily determined from the accident report (if there is one) then perhaps use the talk page or project pages for advice/thoughts of others. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nimbus, nobody is suggesting to leave summaries blank. I totally agree that they should contain the what. It is the why that is problematic, especially when it involves the quick and easy explanation of 'pilot error'.
There are indeed some clear-cut cases in which that is precisely what happened (e.g. the 2010 Alaska USAF C-17 crash: the report literally reads "the cause of the mishap was pilot error"). However, in the vast majority of cases, the causes and contributing factors are multiple and complex to explain. Try and summarize the causes of the Air France Flight 447 crash: the result will be either far too long for the infobox, or partial, incomplete, and therefore non-neutral. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested leaving summaries blank. I agree with including what happened but the why is more problematic.
An example that I gave was Pan Am Flight 799 and how the summary was way too long. The summary read:
Defective checklist, defective takeoff warning hardware, airline's ineffective implementation of Boeing's Service Bulletins, and stress caused by a rushed flight schedule.
The cause of the accident was a take-off performed with flaps retracted, leading to a loss of control. If we put that into a summary it would resemble something like: Loss of control on take-off following incorrect flap configuration.
A similar summary would maintain a neutral point of view while not citing any causes due to its complexity. By simply saying pilot error, the summary disregards other causes/factors involved and oversimplifies the causes.
The summary of West Caribbean Airways Flight 708,
Deep stall due to pilot error, a lack of crew resource management, and loss of situational awareness,
goes against the explanatory parameter note, stating that the summary should be brief and factual. This summary omits several contributing factors and issues from within West Caribbean Airways and engine icing. This summary does not maintain a neutral point of view as it disregards multiple factors that led to the accident taking place. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1223502560"