Talk:Aviation/Archive 2

Verify tags
There are a lot of general areas that don't have any proof. Some areas that don't have any verification:


 * The bottom half of "history"
 * General Aviation
 * Air Traffic Control

Just thought these areas needed some verification, especially since there are only a total of 6 notes throughout the entire article. I just thought that seemed a little sparse. Zoke (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing
I am amazed as to how this article made no reference to Bartholomeu de Gusmão the very first man to build and travel on a hot-air device!

--62.169.67.134 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you have added your information to the article. Are you able to add a citation of the source of your information?  To read about citing sources of information please see WP:CITE.  Dolphin51 (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aviation versus Aeronautics
There is common confusion between these two terms, and while sloppy usage is becoming less rare, the terms are not interchangeable. Aeronautics, (literally the study and activity of sailing the air) can encompass all forms of flight within the atmosphere, though traditionally it referred more to ballooning, due to the earlier success of balloons. Aviation (French, from Latin avis, bird) really refers to winged flight, which includes heavier-than-air craft, but not balloons or airships. As heavier-than-air craft have become the dominant forms of flight in recent decades, the use of the term aviation has gained in popularity, but largely in activities where lighter-than-air vehicles were simply overlooked. If the intent of this article is to include all forms of aerial transportation, then the article should be titled "Aeronautics", with a clarifying section on the term "aviation", and perhaps "aerospace" as well.Globalmindcollective (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks GMC. There is already an article called Aeronautics and inevitably there will be some overlap from each of these articles to the other.  So long as the information in each article is adequately supported by references and in-line citations that information is satisfactory where it is.  See WP:Verifiability.  On the other hand, if the overlap becomes significant there is a good case for rationalising the two articles by removing some of the duplicated information from one article.  The best way for carrying out a rationalising exercise of this kind is to use this Talk page to alert other users and give those who are interested the opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the cutting and pasting.  Dolphin51 (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

importence of english language by T.sreenivasreddy
English is West-Germanic Langauage that is developed in England and South-Westernic during Anglo-Saxno era. English is an International language and it is one the most popular languavge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.66.252 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What about artillery shells?
If one looks at the section about non-lethal_shells where shells for example can be used to distribute propaganda leaflets, it becomes obvious that this is a form of air transportation. The question is just whether this should be included into the section about aviation. Modern artillery shells do have wings and sometimes an internal rocket. There is an example of such a shell here.--hulagutten (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

New name for Weber Aircraft
I heard that the new name for Weber Aircraft is Zodiac Seats US LLC. Is this true?

Gustav Weißkopf
Can someone mention Gustav Weißkopf at the history section ? See here KVDP (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aeronautics vs. aviation
You are invited to join in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Merger proposal below. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Aeronautics be merged into Aviation. There is much duplication between the content of these articles and there appears to be no universally accepted distinction between them.

Here are some dictionary definitions (culled from an initial discussion here):


 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/
 * aeronautics: the science of designing, building, and operating aircraft
 * aviation: the activity of flying aircraft, or of designing, producing, and keeping them in good condition
 * aviator: an aircraft pilot


 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
 * aeronautics: the science or practice of building or flying aircraft
 * aeronaut: a traveller in a hot-air balloon, airship, or other flying craft
 * aviation: the flying or operating of aircraft
 * aviator: chiefly dated a pilot


 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
 * aeronautics: 1. a science dealing with the operation of aircraft
 * 2. the art or science of flight


 * aeronaut: one who operates or travels in an airship or balloon
 * aviation: 1. the operation of heavier-than-air aircraft
 * 2. military airplanes
 * 3. airplane manufacture, development, and design


 * aviator: the operator or pilot of an aircraft and especially an airplane


 * Chambers twentieth century dictionary (Edition unknown)
 * aeronautics: the science and art of aerial navigation
 * aeronaut: a balloonist or airman
 * aviate (verb): to fly mechanically, navigate the air
 * aviator: an airman, flying man
 * airman: An aviator


 * Crane, Dale; Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition (Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2)
 * Aeronautics: The branch of science that deals with ﬂight and with the operation of all types of aircraft. Aerodynamics and aerostatics are both branches of aeronautics.
 * Aviation: The branch of science, business, or technology that deals with any part of the operation of machines that ﬂy through the air.


 * Wragg, D; "Historical dictionary of aviation," (History Press, 2008)
 * Aeronautics: ... an all-embracing word for balloons and airships (aerostation), gliders and aeroplanes (aviation).
 * Aviation: This term applies to heavier-than-air craft.

Several show a general distinction between aeronautics as the science of aircraft flight vs. aviation as the practice, though Oxford sees aeronautics as covering both while Merriam-Webster thinks aeronauts are confined to balloons and airships, and Crane curiously sees aviation as embracing the "science" of operations. Wragg's definition confines aviation to heavier-than air, yet in direct contradiction to this his historical dictionary of "aviation" covers aerostats as well. Generally there is also a vagueness about whether one can "fly" in an aerostat or whether say an engine-powered airship is a "machine". From an encyclopedic point of view this whole semantic muddle suggests to me that there is no sense in treating them as separate topics. The rest of the world seems happy to use both indiscriminately, with "Aviation" the more widely used of the two (a quick hit count on Google suggests around ten times more). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as clearly distinct, just as per the dictionary sources given. Are we planning to merge medicine and human biology? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please respond to "Does an Aeronaut practice flying?" and "Aeronautical science and aeronautics" below &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) [Updated 14:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)]


 * Support - Clearly the definitions show almost total overlap in these topics. A section in the merged article should probably cover the differences in opinion in definitions. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Science" vs "Activity" is pretty clear to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, most of the dictionary sources given don't actually support that view. OED, Crane and Wragg are all inconsistent with it in their different ways, while for example Oxford and Cambridge differ as to whether the practice of manufacturing (producing or building) is part of aeronautics or of aviation. There's nothing clear about all that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The wp:DICDEF probably isn't very helpful here. Historically though, aviation is what birds (fr:avis) do, while aeronauts are "sailors on air". Few today, though, would speak of an the day to day running of an airline's flight operations as aeronautics, that is aviation. Keeping the science and technology articles under aeronautics is a fairly natural way of distinguishing the subject areas. Hatnotes in each article to explain the distinction are warranted. The aeronautical industry makes products. The aviation industry operates them. LeadSongDog come howl!
 * The dividing line is not as sharp as you suggest. Historically, aviators were just aeronauts concerned with the heavier-than-air side of things (see my news clipping relating to the next vote). Then ballooning died out and for half a century aviation became synonymous with aeronautics. Nowadays balloons have made a comeback and this perceived distinction between science and practice has been plastered over the top. An aeronaut practices flying and doesn't just study it - a degree in aeronautical engineering does not make you an aeronaut, only a trip into the sky can do that. Technically any passenger on a jumbo jet is an aeronaut - the pilot being that sub-class of aeronaut known as an aviator. Should we really go deleting all aviation-specific material from the Aeronautics article and vice versa? My view is that, in practical encyclopedic terms, that would be a nonsense. Also, we need a top-level entry article that covers the whole lot. What else to call it but "Aviation"? And having done that, the Aeronautics article has so little unique content left it is best merged into the main article - Go read it, it's mostly just aviation bits copy-pasted across. However I would agree that, for things like Categories, the distinction can sometimes be useful. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please respond to "Does an Aeronaut practice flying?" and "Aeronautical science and aeronautics" below &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) [Updated 14:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)]


 * Merge Difficult call. There's a clear difference between the meannings of the two words. Aeronautics clearly specifically refers to the flying activities (including design & construction of aircraft, whether heavier or lighter than air), and I would argue that (for instance) airport ground-handling equipment would come under the heading of "aviation" but not "aeronautics". (Incidentally, historically what birds do is fly. Aviation is a recent coinage: the OED dates it to 1866, a translation of a work by Nadar, who I imagine was writing about ballooning.) I can, however, see the desirability of avoiding having articles which almost completely overlap. In this case it would seem that "aeronautics" (an archaic word in any case) is completely contained within "aviation". So, merge.TheLongTone (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: M. Nadar has accordingly founded "a society of encouragement for the study of aviation, or aerial locomotion, by means of apparatus heavier than the air," or, as it might better be called, a society for encouraging competition with birds, - The right to fly, The Spectator Archive, 5 May 1866. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting article. Your comment above seems to use this quote to support the use of aviation solely for HTA, which I dont think it does: I would read it as defining aviation as aerial locomotion and then sying that Nadar is concerned with HTA aviation. Of course. if LTA flying is excluded from aviation, there is no case for merging the articles since there would be a substantial amount of material in the aeronautics article. Incidentally CH Gibbs-Smith has quite a bit on early LTA work in his book Aviation. TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave that quotation out of its historical context. As it stands alone it is ambiguous but sources such as Wragg and Merriam Webster share the view I suggested. My point is that there is too much confusion out there for any clear distinction to stick. Where do you get the idea that there is enough material independent of aviation to justify an article on aeronautics? Did you follow my suggestion and check out the current articles? There is almost nothing in the aeronautics article that is not covered better in the aviation article - even down to its section titles - and it has been like that for a decade. It has always been, and remains, an embarrassment to all who want it kept. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood me. I said that if LTA was excluded from "aviation" then there would be a substantial body of material which would necessitate keeping the aeronautics article. Since I am arguing that aviation includes LTA (if it isn't we need a Wikiproject Aeronautics for airships and balloons!) I am not saying that there is enough material independant of aviation to justify a separate article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries.TheLongTone (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Philosophically, the intent is aviation - nearly all facets of aeronautics support the intent of aviation. Without the act of aviating, supporting operations, and ancillary activities surrounding aviation, there would be no need for or expression of aeronautics. We would not dream of, build, and operate flying machines without the intent of flying them. In that context, and given the high degree of overlap and confusion in this matter, aeronautics seems a more reasonable subset of aviation that facilitates the broader topic of man-made methods of flight. I would also support including lighter than air flying machines as part of aviation as advanced weather tracking and GPS navigation for hot air balloons, and improved propulsion systems for blimps and zeppelins increase the degree of human control despite their achieving lift through buoyancy.  - WPGA2345 -     ☛    21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose "aeronautics" should be the science of unnatural flight article, while "aviation" should be the practice of unnatural flight article. "aerodynamics" covers natural flight, while "aviation" and "aeronautics" does not. "aerostatics" is for lighter-than-air. "aerospace" should also be separate. We have aritcles on hydrodynamics and hydrostatics, but are missing one for hydronautics. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is fine, but you are going to have to cite references to support your ideas presented here as the abundant refs cited above to not. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An untenable distinction. Many early fliers were described as "aeronauts" is clearly about practise.TheLongTone (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "aeronaut" has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of what aeronautics is. That's a red herring. "astronautics" is not the study of astronauts. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please respond to "Does an Aeronaut practice flying?" and "Aeronautical science and aeronautics" below &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) [Updated 14:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)]


 * Oppose I might leaning towards strongly oppose. They are quite different. While aviation should have cleanup with the aeronautics section. Things like radar, ground traffic control, accidents and many more things go with aviation but really have nothing to do with aeronautics. How a wing works is aeronautics, but not aviation really. I think they are two separate ideas that should not be merged. Both articles could be improved though. XFEM Skier (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please respond to "Does an Aeronaut practice flying?" and "Aeronautical science and aeronautics" below &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) [Updated 14:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)]
 * User:XFEM Skier: That is an interesting assertion, but as I noted above to another user, not at all supported by the references that we have found so far. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NASA says "Aeronautics is the study of the science of flight. Aeronautics is the method of designing an airplane or other flying machine. There are four basic areas that aeronautical engineers must understand in order to be able to design planes. To design a plane, engineers must understand all of these elements." http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/UEET/StudentSite/aeronautics.html. I think that clearly supports my assertion. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which assertion is interesting? It would he helpful if you could move your reply below the assertion you are commenting on. Note also that a scatter of references in support does not take into account the scatter of references against. The problem here is how to deal with the contradictions evident between varied sources, not whether any one of them is right. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Does an aeronaut practice flying?
Several of the above comments express the view that aeronautics is the science while aviation is the practice. Yet an aeronaut is universally defined as someone who practices flying. For example being an aeronautical engineer does not make one an aeronaut. Also, the current lead to the aeronautics article stresses the practical aspect, "While the term—literally meaning "sailing the air"—originally referred solely to the science of operating the aircraft, it has since been expanded to include technology, business and other aspects related to aircraft." How can these expressed opinions be reconciled with such a universal usage of "aeronaut"? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) [Updated 13:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)]

So - I am proposing that we accept that aeronauts do practice flying. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure aeronaut is relevant to this discussion. Having the same greek routes does not make words have he same meaning as you clearly point out with aeronaut and aeronautical engineer. Although aeronaut currently redirects to aeronautics that does not really fit, I am not sure it actually fits to any page. XFEM Skier (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A common Greek root is not definitive in itself, but is sufficiently indicative to require exceptional evidence against it. One must obviously also consider the relation and usage of the suffixes. If you wish to claim that an aeronaut is other than someone who practices aeronautics, or that aeronautics is practised by someone other than aeronauts, I think you will need some cast-iron references. I find it a ludicrous proposition. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The definition provided here for aeronaut is essentially someone who flies. An aeronautical engineer who designs wing profiles clearly practices aeronautics by the definitions above but is not an aeronaut unless he does that while flying. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that begs the question: what is the difference between an aeronaut and an aviator? - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Steelpillow answers this above. The aeronaut is everyone in a plane and a aviator is the person flying the plane. Note that in the US I cannot say that I hear the term aeronaut pretty much at all. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And it therefore follows (unless you have some truly rock-solid references why not) that, since aeronauts quite obviously practice aeronautics, then aeronautics is about practice as much as it may be about theory. So, how does that square with your vote to the contrary? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Angels dancing on pinheads. I don't think "aeronaut" has been spotted outside captivity since about 1908.20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)TheLongTone (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @TheLongTone: The term "aeronaut" is still used by many modern balloonists to distinguish themselves from fixed-wing pilots. For example here is the Britannica entry for Per Lindstrand: . And even if it were wholly archaic, that would not affect the language semantics.
 * I would not say that someone in a plane is practicing aviation, and definitely not practicing aeronautics. They are practicing sitting. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not what you (or I) say that matters, it's what the sources say. And many of them contradict your view. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An aeronaut is a balloonist. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that? - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The distinction is made here, rather less than half way down the second column. However, is is just one (legal) opinion and as I've said, aeronaut is an archaism. And I'd agree with XFEM Skier: the self loading cargo are neither aeronauts nor aviators.TheLongTone (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that ref. At 102 years old, so it is archaic! - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And of course one can find as many references to contradict that definition. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Reading legal documents is not my cup of tea, but from the context of the above quote (which I happened to stumble upon) I think that the learned gentlemen were referring to existing pre-HTA flight legislation using the word aeronaut & using this to make a distinction based on the fact that the certificate in question was an aviation certificate. However, in 1914 the Royal Aero Club was awarding Aeronaut's certificates for LTA and aviators certificates for HTA. All this is fundamentally irrelevant to the main discussion about "aeronautics", which indisputably includes HTA. There's a flourishing aeronautical engineering faculty at Bristol uni, and I'm sure that they are more concerned with what goes on at Filton than the LTA flights from Long Ashton. TheLongTone (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Aeronautical science and aeronautics
Several of the above comments express the view that aeronautics is the science while aviation is the practice. Yet the definition of aeronautics as "the science or art of flying" is widely used. The term "Aeronautical science" is also widely used - around four times as many Google hits as "aeronautics." Firstly, this begs the question, what are the other aspects of aeronautics besides the science? Presumably, that must be the art or practice. Secondly, it suggests that the correct article for a discussion of the science would be Aeronautical science, currently a redirect to aeronautics. How can these expressed opinions, that aeronautics is only the science, be reconciled with such a universal usage of "art" vs. "aeronautical science"? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So - I am proposing that we do accept that aeronautics includes the "art" or practice of flying. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is more and more evidence that the two terms are used interchangeably. For instance Transport Canada publishes a book called the TP 14371 - Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM) which is all the background information you need to know about the practice of flying an aircraft. This book on "aeronautics" includes information on weather, flight planning, navaids, air traffic control, aerodromes and airports, radio communications, regulations, search and rescue, pilot licencing, aircraft registration and airworthiness, and airmanship. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Aeronautical science and aviation
Since it seems like the sources are out on the meaning of aviation versus aeronautics and therefore consensus here seems unlikely, I propose that we change aeronautics article to Aeronautical science and keep aviation as is. A redirect from aeronautics to aeronautical science and in the lead define aeronautical science and then briefly say that meaning of aeronautics can either mean aeronautical science or aviation. This would provide a clear distinction between aeronautics and aviation that seems murky. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first part of that seems sensible to me. Aeronautical science is currently a redirect to Aeronautics, so yes, a simple move would be the easiest way. (I am not sure that we can say that "aeronautics" can mean the same as "aeronautical science" without a reference to back up that specific synonym - otherwise, it would be Original research, so it might be better to define aeronautics in the Aviation article and redirect Aeronautics there, but I think that is a separate issue best left for another discussion.) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The NASA link provides above says that it is science. Arguably a more reliable source then a dictionary, but since not everyone is willing to accept that you can put the word science on the end. According to NASA definition that would be like calling it chemistry science but I thought that might make people happy here. There are many sources that state that Aeronautics is the science of flying (NASA, Cambridge and Crane).XFEM Skier (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)