Talk:General aviation

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Expansion by someone who has first-hand knowledge?[edit]

OK, the answer to the question is probably “no”, but do we have any contributor around who is or knows someone who flies their own plane and who could expand this article? Something along the lines of cruising on small craft or even half of that would be great.

Also, the rules for immigration and customs and such are probably different (more strict) from when you cross borders onboard some kind of commercial carrier or your own car, so this would also be good to cover. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Environment friendliness[edit]

I know that some general aviation planes have small engines, and thus probably not have too large a footprint compared to the alternative, but I am still confused about this edit. Why belittle the impact of a personal jet?

Is it that we want to say that travelling to off the beaten path destinations is cool, and we should go feeling cool and not feeling bad for the environment? I have some sympathy for the thought, but saying a personal jet "may be a little environmentally unfriendly" feels more like wanting to excuse a lifestyle wasting resources for no good reason.

I rewrote the paragraph now, but would hope somebody who really knows could word it better.

--LPfi (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should highlight the impact on the environment. But I may be biased as I really try to take alternatives to flying whenever possible. Though, to be quite honest, I have twice in my life taken "makes no bloody sense to fly" flights (TXL-FRA and Corn Island - Bluefields), in both cases because they made economic sense to me, perversely enough. Another aspect that may have arisen is whether our "enthusiastic in favor of travel" tone that is mentioned in some policy page or other precludes us from saying in so many words "Don't go there". Of course, even the most off the beaten path places can be gotten to by (comparatively) "green" methods; there is a boat to Corn Island, you can walk to most places in the bush and even the United States without a car are not entirely impossible, but at the end of the day, most people - and most of our readers - will still take a way of getting in and around that harms the environment. And for some destinations even having read our leave no trace camping page is not enough to avoid the irreparable damage to the environment or cultural heritage. Be it caves where even light and breathing can damage paintings or stone formations or buildings where the steps really can't take another million footsteps if we are quite honest. Though, to be fair to our coverage, we do a better job of highlighting those issues without being killjoys than other publications that shall remain nameless... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the best we can do is provide information and let people make their own decisions. Dining is another thing we do that has environmental implications, and heating or cooling our dwellings and workplaces surely does. I don't think it's wrong to have websites that help increase people's information and enjoyment, although you are absolutely right that traveling by means other than one's own power (walking, cycling, snowshoeing, etc.) is normally damaging to the environment, with currently-used technology. I hope that changes soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat flippant comment on overestimating one's own abilities removed[edit]

So my comment on the - very real phenomenon - that every driver thinks they are better than the rest and therefor driving might be dangerous but driving with them is totally safe, because, yaknow, they are Michel Vaillant, Henry Ford and that guy from Fast & The Furious all rolled into one has been removed and replaced with a drier "the dangerous part is the pilot, not the plane", which may be accurate on the face of it but I fear ignores the mentioned factor. True, for air pilots there are more objective quality criteria than for people in cars, but if the common stereotypes are even second cousin of facts the "I am the greatest pilot since Charles Lindbergh" attitude does exist among pilots, too. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My experience is completely contrary to this. Every pilot I know is a conservative and safety conscious. Aviation is a safety based industry, and there is a focus on contingency and safe flight from the ab-initio training right up to ATPL. I've never met a gung-ho pilot, and I'm entirely sure they would be weeded out of any flight school I've ever had contact with. Look at the turn out at places like AirVenture - and the amount of people at the safety seminars - can you imagine the equivalent happening with drivers? I've never even seen that stereotype for pilots outside of the movies, and I'm confident that to the extent it might exist, it is untrue. --Inas (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Jets and safety[edit]

Comparing general aviation safety to alternatives, the article says "Light aircraft [...] don't have a safety record that's up there with jet aircraft". I suppose the point is not propeller vs jet but ad hoc flying vs heavily regulated aircraft with full time pilots on standard routes. Somebody in the know could replace "jet" in that sentence with the most relevant word(s). --LPfi (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the point I raise in the above section does also influence safety... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Tried another wording now. --LPfi (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Are private airports and jets in scope for WV?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I just removed some info on the Boston article about private jets and airports that, for all intents and purposes, are closed to the public. Is this stuff we want to cover on WV? It just seems ludicrous to me to include any of it, but thought I would ask here. I've never seen any guidebook cover this, so maybe that's an argument to keep it, but really? Really? It honestly feels too niche, like it's just more noise to force readers to sift through. Thanks for your input! --ButteBag (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:ReadyJetGo (contribs) has been adding this information. He/she may want to weigh in. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
general aviation is a legitimate way of getting places. I think there should not be a hard and fast rule. A short article where the "by plane" section would be otherwise non-existent or filled with "from City X Airport take a five hour train ride" we can mention smaller airfields open to private pilots and whatnot. We shouldn't mention every rooftop helicopter pad in major metropolises, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The important distinction is between airports that are open to the public for general aviation purposes and those that are closed to the public, i.e. that are privately owned or you need a military clearance to fly into them or whatnot. The former are unquestionably within scope; the latter, the argument is much weaker. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll let others address User:ReadyJetGo's edits, but I want to address User:ButteBag's question: We have an article about General aviation. We mention in USA#By private plane that you can charter flights and that it can be competitive in price with (first-class) commercial flights. So why shouldn't we mention airports for general aviation in destination articles?
Remember, what makes WV unique is that, because it's not bound by the limits of print media, it can include details like GA airports. Simply listing them out is a little bit useful; you could figure out the same thing using a map. Listing charter operations provides a little more value. What I'd really like to see is actual travel info such as info on how to get to/from these airfields.
If nothing else, I don't buy your argument that these airports are "for all intents and purposes closed to the public". It's exactly the opposite; these air charter companies are open for anyone to buy a flight. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. This is Wikivoyage. Private plane travel is a type of voyage and very much in scope for the site, just as private boating is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I put back the content in the Boston article. Maybe should however not just concentrate on jet planes but any general aviation. Most people I know who use private and charter planes are using prop-planes or helicopters, but agree private jets are also a valid form of transport. Agree with comments above what would be really useful with these airports is what transport is available to get from the airport to centre of town; closest hire car station, phone number of local taxi service. Also I have found some very good restaurants attached to even the smallest of airfields. Also some of this detail could be moved to other more local city pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure they are. I see no problem with adding information for getting in by general aviation. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but would you at least give me that travel by private jet is staggeringly less popular than other modes of transport? Could this information be captured in an article like Luxury jet travel in the United States? Or maybe we should expand the scope of airport articles to include non-commercial/private air strips? Either would be a better solve in my opinion. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Jet maybe exclusive but light aircraft not. This is a common form of transport and with coming new technologies even more so. We should not start excluding particular types of traveller on this site. How can you judge who is and who should read pages on this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this topic is within scope, but I share ButteBag's concern that for most destinations it's only of interest to a tiny fraction of travelers. I suppose there's nowhere else to put it besides the destination articles, but let's keep it as concise as possible. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with concision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
But if the info will only be useful to a handful of people, why not consolidate it on a singe topic page instead of spreading it across (eventually) 1000's of destination pages? Or expanding on Traveler100's comment, why not create a "Tiny Airport" template? We could list any options for transport, food, lodging and so on. --ButteBag (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where the problem is? Small airports should be dealt with on the closest location page same as a bus station or train station with a type=go listing. Charter flight companies the same as a bus or train company with a mention if useful for travelers in the area. More general non location information added at General aviation. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Exclusive hotels are also only available to a handful of wealthy travellers, but covering them all in a single article, as opposed to the location article which best suits, would be preposterous.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I highly doubt someone will suddenly "clutter" tons of articles with this information. Also, it is likely useful for places like northern Canada or the Australian outback where general aviation isn't that an exotic way for getting around. If it is moved to one article, given that probably not even a dozen of Wikivoyage's destination articles have information about general aviation, that article is not only going to be as spotty as agritourism but unless the reader is already familiar with Wikivoyage, chances that they will find that information is next to none. ϒψιλον (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The information that would be needed for the typical Cessna 172 on a trip can easily be condensed into a couple of sentences. The relevant questions to answer are somewhat along the lines of:
  • How long's the runway, and what surface does it have?
  • Can I get fuel there?
  • Is the place equipped for an instrument approach or is it VFR only?
  • Can I just go ahead and fly there or do I have to give them a call first (prior permission required/PPR)?
  • Can I get customs/immigration services there?
This is how I recently added that kind of information to Bayreuth. And these bare essentials is pretty much all that needs to be there for a pilot to get an idea about whether that's a destination to consider for a stop. Everything else (callsigns, frequencies, traffic patterns, approach procedures, weight limitations, …) will have to be looked up in the most recent version of the official documents anyway.
Apart from that, I think it would be a good idea to think about undeleting Template:ICAO for use in this context (and only there). Outside of the airline business, the ICAO location indicator is actually quite important, as that's what you typically use for your route planning and what you enter into your navigation system to set a waypoint. For example, the en:Garmin G1000 allows you to enter an airport's ICAO-code or search the built-in database for the airport's or city's name, but the letters "IATA" are not even mentioned once in the whole user's manual. I know that the ICAO-code does not play a large role in Canada and the US (it's the same as IATA plus one letter for larger airports and does not exist for the very small ones). But in Germany, Austria and probably other European countries, this is the only kind of location identifier code you will find on a VFR-map. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The cities in which I am creating private aviation details for are all home to busy aviation markets, both high-end and budget, with multiple "private" airports that are 100% open to the public, and have FBOs/charter operators based on-site. I'm also including companies that specialize in services to these airports from other locations. I'm using Wyvern, FlightAware, the FAA, and google search to find & validate all of my information. Please advise as to whether or not I should continue adding private aviation details to city pages. --ReadyJetGo (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@ReadyJetGo: I think you have consensus to continue. Thank you for your contributions. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @El Grafo: and @ReadyJetGo: I think the one thing I'd advise you to keep in mind (and maybe this should be discussed in a WV style guide, but I don't know what page is suitable for discussing general aviation airport listings) is "who is the target audience", and what information to include and what to omit. For example, while charter flights may tend towards jet aircraft, in the US there are about twice as many piston single and multi GA aircraft as there are turboprops and jets. Information like "is customs/immigration available" could be useful for any traveller, but info on runways, fuel/services, etc., in addition to being only useful to pilots is also something they'd need to confirm and research in much more detail anyway while planning a flight, so listing it here provides only marginal utility. In northern Canada or Alaska where GA is a more common way of getting around, it might be helpful to give such basic airfield details to save the reader a little bit of time as they research and pick destinations, but giving such details for airports around a large US city would probably not very helpful. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@ARR8: Thanks. I was concerned that my edits were being invalidated and just wanted clarification/green light before making more edits. I will take into consideration the niche aspect of private jet travel. I'm not including private/prior permission required/military airports, or anything further than 50 miles that isn't frequently used. That said, charter flights on single & twin engine props can start as low as $1500 - $2000 an hour via charter brokers, and slightly less through charter operators (which entails renting the entire aircraft, contracting/paying individually). Light jets (not the pretty ones anyway) aren't much more. These regional/county/municipal airports are also used to service shared flights and unscheduled charters, where you can purchase individual seats for substantially less. I also think ButteBag may have been thrown off by my Boston edit due to the fact that I only mentioned private/business jet travel, whereas all my other edits include single & twin engine aircraft as economical options. I'm going to include this in the Boston page, and browse my edits to make sure it's included in previous entries. My goal is to help these pages rank for private aviation within these cities, as WV has substantial SEO potential, and to expand the type of information available to readers looking for flight options in these regions. --ReadyJetGo (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bigpeteb: My target audience has been affluent neighborhoods, executive travelers, and HNWIs in cities with busy private aviation markets. The airports I'm using include charter brokers, charter operators, and/or customs & immigration services. I'm also including those companies in the content - by reaching out to them, readers can get all of their questions answered from industry professionals. I'm not wasting time including runway details or fuel services, although I am including FBOs/private terminals, it's relation to the city, and why it's often used for GA and business jets. --ReadyJetGo (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Resource Link Enquiry[edit]

Hello there,

My name is George, and I was wondering if you would like to have your website wikivoyage.org promoted as a resource on my blog georgemartjr.com ?

We are updating our broken link resources to include up to date resources for our readers. Our resource links are manually approved as a do follow link. If you are interested in having your site included as a resource on our blog, please let me know.

Thanks George

—The preceding comment was added by 1.179.144.41 (talkcontribs)

Hi, George. That would be nice for you to do, but it's entirely up to you and needs no formal approval from anyone here. Wikivoyage is run by volunteers like you and me. I'll post a welcome message on your user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, your user talk page is User talk:1.179.144.41. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)