Talk:General aviation in the United Kingdom

{{Article history

|action1=PR

|action1date=18:52, 3 July 2008

|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/General aviation in the United Kingdom/archive1

|action1result=reviewed

|action1oldid=223355314

|action2=PR

|action2date=22:41, 21 July 2008

|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/General aviation in the United Kingdom/archive2

|action2result=reviewed

|action2oldid=227089745

|action3=FAC

|action3date=01:14, 6 August 2008

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/General aviation in the United Kingdom

|action3result=promoted

|action3oldid=230033953

|action4 = FAR

|action4date = 2022-03-19

|action4link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/General aviation in the United Kingdom/archive1

|action4result = demoted

|action4oldid = 1072860622

|currentstatus=FFA

|maindate=September 20, 2009

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|

{{WikiProject Aviation|B-Class-1=yes

|B-Class-2=yes

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes

|old-peer-review=yes

|portal-link=Selected article/28

}}

}}

Article development

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)

= Propose my support =

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)

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/General_aviation_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=229778444&oldid=229770256 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 [http://www.gliding.co.uk/findaclub/ukmap.htm BGA web site] describes 85 sites as gliding sites, the [http://www.gaac.co.uk/gasar/GASAR_AerodromeCategorisation.pdf 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)

Safety data needs updating

Safety data in the article is based on CAP763, but this has been superseded by [http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3325 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)

LASORS 2010 released, references need updating

[http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1591 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)

Some figures outdated and overstated

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 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=90&pageid=122 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)

Border formalities

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

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

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)