Talk:Cessna 172

Cessna 175 variants with 172 model numbers

We seem to have an inconsistency about how we cover the 172 variants under the 175 type certificate. The P172D Powermatic is covered in Cessna 175 Skylark as the final variant of the 175, which is not technically accurate as the type certificate indicates that the series continued with the R172E, R172F, R172G, R172H, R172J, R172K, and 172RG. The R172E through R172H are covered in Cessna T-41 Mescalero, while the R172J through 172RG are covered here. Cutting off the 175 variants at P172D seems to be a bit arbitrary, as I have yet to see any sources lump it with the 175 while not also including the other 172s under the type certificate, with most sources ether grouping them by model number or type certificate. I think it would be better to either move the P172D to this article or move all the other variants to Cessna 175 Skylark. I personally prefer the former, perhaps with the 175 type certificate variants getting their own subsection to differentiate them from the "true" 172 variants. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it broadly makes the most sense to group GA aircraft by how the manufacturer markets them, not by what type certificate they are produced under. A lot of GA manufacturers have played peculiar games with type certificates, making it confusing to the uninitiated to group aircraft this way. In other words, I would prefer to cover the P172D here, and revise the 175 and T-41 articles to clearly but briefly address aircraft marketed as 172s produced under those type certificates. Also, forgive my ignorance, but what are the R172E through R172H? Carguychris (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I was bold and grouped all 175 TC variants of the 172 here. As for the R172E through R172H, they were exclusively built for military customers as the T-41, though Reims also built civilian derivatives. See Cessna 172#Variants under 175 type certificate - ZLEA _T\^C 18:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good me, although I suggest moving most of the R172E through R172H details to the T-41 article and replacing them with a simplified summary here. Carguychris (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought of that, but many of the details are still relevant to their respective Reims Rocket variants. The variants section in the T-41 article should still be expanded with the details, though. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Safarilink Aviation mid-air

@Canterbury Tail et al, can we all agree that the 2024 Nairobi mid-air collision warrants inclusion in Accidents and Incidents? The accident itself is clearly notable despite not involving any injuries to anyone other than the pilots in the 172. Including the collision here is consistent with longstanding WP:AV practice; for instance, every currently listed Cessna 150 accident is a mid-air collision, most involve a commercial airline flight, and several caused no injuries to anyone other than the occupants of the 150. Carguychris (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I find the idea that it is not notable enough to be listed here a bit unusual. While the 172 has been involved in numerous training accidents and collisions, this one stands out from most in that it has received significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Therefore, it should be included here. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm fine with it being notable. I misread it originally on my phone and thought it was a collision with a small Diamond aircraft, not a larger passenger airliner. My error. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I see how that could happen, and I've reworded the entry to make the other aircraft type more clear. FYI, I've also RM'd the 2024 Nairobi mid-air collision to Safarilink Aviation Flight 053 for consistency with WP:AVTITLE. Carguychris (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)