Talk:Private pilot licence

John Edward "Ed" Long
For what it's worth, Guinness credited 83-yr-old John Edward "Ed" Long with being the highest-time pilot ever a few yrs ago, with 64000hr in his logbook--@ the time... Trekphiler 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if he merits an encyclopedia article, it in turn could be referenced in Aviator. Most likely he has, or had, a commercial certificate, not private. There's no matching "Long" in Alabama in the current database. David Brooks

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Private Pilot Licence → Private pilot licence –

As it says, they're obtainable and usable "anywhere in the world", that is, issued by any number of authorities. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Generic term, should be decapitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Private pilot licence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528084521/http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-2E.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-2E.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I propose merging Private pilot into this article. There is virtually nothing that can be said about a private pilot beyond that they hold a private pilot license. Most of the content on Private pilot is about the license and qualification process. Jimblackler (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree, they are the same topic. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Same/overlapping topic. - BilCat (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as per before. "Private pilot" could be extended with illustrations of what one does, though, after getting the licence. Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - agreeed. 216.163.247.3 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverse Merge to private pilot.  The context of linking this would make much more sense. There's also plenty which applies to pilots, but not licences. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well... see Pilot licensing and certification, Student pilot certificate, Commercial pilot licence, Flight instructor, and Airline transport pilot licence. 216.163.247.3 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – What a pilot does is already covered in Aircraft pilot. A private pilot is simply an aircraft pilot with a PPL, so it makes little sense to have a Private pilot article when we already have Private pilot licence. Obviously Private pilot would still redirect to this article, after the merge, so it can still be linked very naturally in the prose. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger reverted
I have reverted the merger of text into this article, as it was not done right. "Merging" one article into another is not accomplished by just taking the whole contents of one article and dumping it into this one. That created a mess and essentially wrecked this article. Only the relevant, properly referenced and non-duplicate parts should be added to this article, which is almost none of it. If you aren't going to merge it properly then best to leave this article as it is and keep the other article title location as a redirect here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No point to merge it at all as they are clearly different articles and subject matters.RJS001 (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)