Wikipedia

Talk:General aviation in the United Kingdom

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Buidhe in topic FA criteria
Learn more about this page
Former featured articleGeneral aviation in the United Kingdom is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 21, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
March 19, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Article development

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I intend to develop this article along the lines of the following structure...

  • Definition (the lead will eventually become easier to read, summarising the entire article, and the current involved discussion of definitions will become a separate section)
  • History
  • Purpose
  • Infrastructure (e.g. airfields)
  • Size (number of aircraft, number of licensed pilots, economic info, etc.)
  • Regulation (maintenance, licensing, flight ops, etc)
  • Safety
  • Costs and benefits (inc. environmental concerns)
  • Anything else that seems relevant

--FactotEm (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply


Propose my support

edit

I propose my support for:

  • Regulation (maintenance, licensing, flight ops, etc): Especially the new European GA regulation
  • Safety: Statistics

--Nic Germ (Nic Germ) 15:47, 22 Jul. 2008 (UTC)

Gliding sites (FAC spillover)

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this edit to the FAC page for this article, User:Ndsg raised the possibility of adding info on the number of gliding sites, and made the following statement...

  • Ref 52 does however say Of the 687 aerodromes, 113 were used for glider, microlight, balloon and parascending operations which were nowhere described in detail, and could not therefore be included in the classification analysis ...—& my point is simply that roughly 85 of them are described (in detail) as gliding sites on the BGA website.

As this wasn't really germaine to the FAC, we agreed to bring the discussion here.

My response to the above is that...

  • Whilst the BGA web site describes 85 sites as gliding sites, the GASAR aerodrome classification required far more information for its analysis, of which use (or in this context, 'specialisation') was just one. In fact it applied 28 criteria, including such things as operating hours, ease of joining, catering facilities, runway lighting etc etc (p. 2-5). I just do not see that detail in the BGA list (and in fact, it tends to be compiled by gliding club name rather than airfield, with some cases giving no obvious indication at all of the airfield used (e.g. Darlton));
  • The GASAR analysis does include gliding sites where the necessary information existed. I haven't checked all sites, but certainly Lasham ('developed GA airfield'), Nympsfield, and Rufforth (both 'basic GA airfield') are listed. In the descriptions of these airfield types, the study report states "In several sites these aircraft are likely to be Gliders and associated with large numbers of trailers rather than hangars" and "Again important gliding sites are included." (p. 7)

Largely an academic point, but worthwhile being clear about it all. I was very conscious throughout this article not to give undue weight to any one segment of the GA sector. To the uninvolved, GA is often all about Cessna's and the like, and I made great efforts to ensure that, wherever the sources allowed, I included all aspects of GA. --FactotEm (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Safety data needs updating

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Safety data in the article is based on CAP763, but this has been superseded by CAP780, which covers the years 1998-2007. Anyone care to update the article with the new data, either by replacing it, or better still by adding the new data to the existing data? --Simple Bob (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

LASORS 2010 released, references need updating

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

LASORS 2010 has been released. There are quite a few references in this article to the older 2008 edition which will need to be revalidated and/or updated.

Mobilesense (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some figures outdated and overstated

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is an excellent and outstanding article, but reading it today the dates and figures are somewhat dated now. There are many references to the period ending 2005, from which statistics are quoted. Specifically, the number of GA aircraft is stated as 29,000 or more. The [CAA G-INFO webpage] indicates today's figure is around 21,000. I suspect the number of registered pilots also needs revised (downwards). Are there sources of more up to date figures which could be used?

Mobilesense (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on General aviation in the United Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on General aviation in the United Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 80 external links on General aviation in the United Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General aviation in the United Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General aviation in the United Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Border formalities

edit

Wouldn't this article benefit from a section on entering and leaving the UK via private flights - immigration, customs and traffic control procedures etc.? It would interest me at least!

Bias - Subject criticisms

edit

The article appears to be bias when talking about criticism of general aviation, In my opinion it is written by someone who is a climate activist. Whilst I understand and accept there are environmental concerns such as noise and pollution this must be put into relevant context.

FA criteria

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article needs to be updated, large part of it has not been updated since FA promotion in 2008. There also seems to be a big gap in comprehensiveness, the article does not discuss greenhouse gas emissions at all despite this being a major issue in aviation. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_aviation_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1200152466"