Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 24

Improper flaps
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I'd suggest moving to a new subsection in Flap_(aeronautics), 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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * ... pre-landing AND pre-takeoff! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

FYI, the Improper flaps article was deleted on May 7. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Loitering munition
Loitering munition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CMD (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ryanair Discussion
Hi all, I recently opened a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines regarding Ryanair, any feedback would be appreciated! VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and Vaimanika Shastra
Hi,

Coming here from these articles. They are about unverified or perhaps hoaxed/legendary claims of early attempts at aviation in India.

Would the Category:Aviation in India or Category:Aviation history of India then be apt here?

I have been told these cannot be added as such (perhaps due to WP:FRINGE concerns).

Please do let me know if these cats are appropriate for the article or otherwise which ones might be. Having no cats related to aviation in these articles deprives it from needed navigation. Afterall we do have Category:Pseudohistory under history (maybe a similar arrangement can be made for such aviation-related articles).

Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not part of our main aviation coverage. We have an article on Claims to the first powered flight, but I am not sure if the Talpade nonsense has sufficient credibility. We also have an article on Aircraft in fiction; the Vaimanika Shastra might find a home in that space. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was able to follow on from these to the relevant cats. :) Gotitbro (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have also added internal links to the articles listed above. Gotitbro (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've linked the first-flight article in the Vaimanika Shastra article. For what it's worth, I've previously contemplated creating an article called First flight claims considered to be implausible or something similar (discredited, nonsensical, balderdash?), but I discarded the idea because it doesn't seem encyclopedic, it's inherently subjective, and there would likely be ongoing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issues. Carguychris (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Flybe listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Flybe to be moved to Flybe (2022–2023). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Aviation Safety Network Wikibase
Looking through the talk archives, I see ASN being touted as a reliable source pretty universally, and have treated it as such. Questions have been raised as to how reliable it is, in the Pan Am Flight 214 FAC (Source review section) as well as a recent AFD I saw (I can't remember which). I've noticed what seem to be some changes in the site, with accident articles being referred to as "wikibase articles". Looking at the page in question, I see "Yes, you can add accidents and incidents to the ASN WikiBase yourself! Or you can correct or update existing accidents. You can add any aviation accident or incident you like: general aviation, military, helicopters etc. As long as they are not covered in the main ASN Safety Database" and a red box warning "This information is added by users of ASN. ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information." On the other hand, it says "Every entry or correction is being reviewed before it appears online." Is it time to reevaluate whether or not ASN is as reliable a source as we've been treating it? I know it is used heavily in a lot of articles here. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To quote what I said at FAC: you need to evaluate each entry on its own merits. In the case of the report cited here, it's basically a dump from the CAB report. There's nothing controversial here so I don't see any reason to nit-pick about the reliability of ASN, but on the other hand, it probably makes more sense to just cite the underlying CAB report directly.That last bit is the important part. ASN entries generally cite their sources, so it's almost always more useful to just cite the real source directly.  The fact that ASN aggregated the information into a database doesn't make it any more or less reliable than the underlying source. RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This recent ASN database entry is a good example of how you have to evaluate each entry on its own merits. It says, "... was destroyed following an inflight breakup".  Contrast that with what an NTSB spokesperson says in this press briefing: "very indicative of an in-flight breakup".  Of course the NTSB guy knows it was an in-flight breakup, but the NTSB is careful and exacting, so he's hedging on that until more data is in.  Whoever wrote that statement in the ASN entry was willing to make what sounds like an authoritative statement based on their own evaluation of the primary sources available to them at the time.  The bottom line is, ASN is a good tool for doing research, but I'd be really careful about blanket statements like "ASN is a WP:RS so we should believe anything it says". RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What's interesting to me about that Beechcraft Bonanza crash you just posted is the page looks quite a bit different from the ASN pages of old accidents that I've been looking at, such as this one. The Bonanza has a user-contributed warning box at the top, and a link that lets me directly edit the details that appear on the accident description.   The 1963 Northwest Orient accident has neither one of those, even though both have similar-appearing URLs and both are identified as WikiBase articles.  This Piper PA-22 accident that occurred on the same day as the Northwest Orient accident allows me to edit it and has the warning box, so it's not just the age.  The difference is when I click on the "database" link at the top of ASN, I see an ASN Accident Database and a Wikibase.  The 1963 Piper accident only shows up in the Wikibase, but the Northwest Orient accident shows up in both.   RecycledPixels (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding 'Wikibase' to the title of this section to make it clear that this discussion is about the user-generated part of the ASN. The ASN editor-generated content instead ('Main database' or 'ASN accident database'), is arguably as reliable as The Aviation Herald, which we consider a RS I suppose. It looks as though the editable articles (the ones with the red box that warns that "This information is added by users of ASN." etc) are part of the Wikibase, while the non-editable ones are part of the Main DB, regardless of how the URL looks like. In fact, if you take the URL of any ASN article, e.g. https://aviation-safety.net/asndb/333147, you can swap asndb with wikibase or vice-versa, and it will open the same page. The About section of the ASN says that "The ASN Wikibase [...] contains descriptions of more than 258,000 accidents [...] as well as the accidents contained in the ASN accident database", which suggests that at some point the two databases were merged. Confusingly though, on the ASN website there seems to be no way of filtering a search for Main DB articles only, and the Main Database page links to Wikibase articles as well. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)