Talk:List of aircraft type designators

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Inclusion of generic designators[edit]

Would it make sense to include "Special Designators" and "Unmanned Aircraft (UA)" designators listed at https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/SpecialDesignators.aspx? e.g. "GLID" -> Glider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D200:1:21:149F:96F1:5D4F:5A6C (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion on the scope of aircraft that should/shouldn't be included, in order to avoid becoming simply a WP:DIRECTORY. None of the "special" category codes fit those criteria, so there seems little point in including them. We already have a link to the ICAO website where they can be viewed. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of deprecated codes[edit]

Before we start adding too many deprecated codes, can we perhaps actually try to achieve some consensus here?

Although this sort of list doesn't quite seem to fall under any of the categories in WP:NOT, it does seem to me that trying to add what must be quite literally thousands of deprecated designators would be awfully close to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, it would be very difficult for such a list ever to be exhaustive. Lastly, if adding deprecated codes does gain consensus, might I suggest that they should be placed in a separate list. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support such a move to keep deprecated codes separate from current ones. Pending a consensus I won't add any more for the time being. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better to colour code the unused codes has has been done but perhaps with a notes column so a clear reference that they are no longer in use (rather than the inline comment used at the moment. Also perhaps split into separate tables/articles for each letter rather than the suggested current/deprecated as there is a lot of current codes missing never mind old ones. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

> there is a lot of current codes missing never mind old ones

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the list is ever going to be comprehensive - there are currently 2,672 distinct current codes (including the 12 generic ones)! Apart from anything else, ICAO would undoubtedly protest as it currently sells a subscription to Doc 8643 for $295.

I still favour separate lists for current and deprecated codes (assuming there is a consensus for the latter at all). DaveReidUK (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't seem any nearer a consensus about whether, why and how we should include deprecated codes in the list. Are there any strong objections if I edit the list for the time being to include only current ones? And does anyone have any views on how to decide which of the 2,000+ current codes to include/exclude? The current selection seems a bit arbitrary in some respects. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One relatively obvious option would be to list only codes for airliners, though that would in turn raise the question of where to draw the bottom line – stop with regional-sized? If you start to include feeder aircraft, the border line with general aviation becomes rather fuzzy...Rosbif73 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could limit the list to the "L4J, L3J and L2J" sub-classes which should cover most jet airlines and remove all the single-engined and piston-engined types as a starter. MilborneOne (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and !vote No deprecated codes. As for the active ones, if anyone can find a good source for number of commercial flights per month(day? year?), I would recommend focusing the article on the top 300-500 models. This entire article is borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE in my opinion, and the list could use some clear boundaries. Sario528 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, filtering by number and type of engines could make sense. Excluding single-engined aircraft reduces the number of designators to 763; excluding piston engines as well brings it down to 572; further excluding helicopters and tiltrotors results in 486 designators. A further option could be to exclude Wake Category L (light) and/or military aircraft as most of those don't have corresponding IATA designators. Incidentally, does anyone have an up-to-date list of IATA generic/specific codes? DaveReidUK (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any dissenting views, I plan to do a rationalisation of the content of the page. My planned approach to whittling down the 2,695 current ICAO codes will be to filter out the following: single-engined aircraft, non-turbine types, one-offs/prototypes, rotary-winged types, bizjets and types predominantly in military use. My estimate is that around 200 types will be left as a representative range to satisfy the somewhat woolly aims of the page. Almost all of those 200 or so types should have valid corresponding IATA codes, and I've found an accessible industry source for the latter (since IATA won't share them other than to their paid customers). Before I start, views welcomed on (a) the suggested filter criteria, and (b) whether the 200 or so entries that would result are too few/enough/too many. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a separate page could be made for single engine. Those are the only one I really care about. 678Dave (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated codes removed as per current ICAO Doc 8643. Still looking for an up-to-date list of IATA codes (SSIM Appendix A) to match - any offers? DaveReidUK (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the need to remove such a large number of type codes from this list. The name of the list is "List of aircraft type designators". Nothing in the name or description, except the new statement "The following is a partial list of ICAO type designators for a range of multi-engined and turbine aircraft, with corresponding IATA type codes where available.", would suggest a need to limit the list in any manner. What is the purpose of having a list at all if it is a partial list with an arbitrary filter applied? Who uses this list? Why would any edit force patrons to go search for TBM9 or C172 ("Skyhawk is the most popular single-engine aircraft ever built and the ultimate flight training aircraft for student pilots.")? Even the first sentence of the description of this list states "that may appear in flight planning". I agree deprecated items should be removed. Why remove anything else? JimDawkins (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree deprecated items should be removed. Why remove anything else?" "What is the purpose of having a list at all if it is a partial list with an arbitrary filter applied?"

See WP:DIRECTORY for Wikipedia's policy on (not) being simply a directory and hence the reason why we don't simply list all 2,708 (as at 12 August 2022) designators. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]