Talk:Flight planning

Rewrite

This page used to be just a redirect to Flight plan. See my notes on the talk page of that article for my intentions. I expect that it will take a month or two to get this article into a reasonably complete shape. Murray Langton 12:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is now in a vaguely usable state. Still need more explanation of 'reclear/redispatch'. Lots of more minor items still to come. Murray Langton 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review 1

I have written this article from scratch over the last few weeks, and would appreciate having other Wikipedians cast their eyes over it (other articles I have contributed to have benefitted greatly from other editors).

I work for a major flight planning bureau service.

• Please check for bias/POV.
• I can't reveal trade secrets by referencing internal company documents or quoting internally-developed equations.

Thank you in advance for your efforts. Murray Langton 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is way too long- please see WP:LEAD.
• safety-critical shouldn’t be in bold.
• Too many extra spaces between sections
• Per WP:MoS, the first letter of the first word of a heading should be captalized, even if it isn’t a proper noun
• The heading “What is a Route?” isn’t very appropriate; headings generally aren’t questions
• Very, very list-weighty, some of the lists should be converted to prose
• What kind of a citation format is being used for the reference? Please see WP:CITE
• The TOC is huge
• “Basic terminology” is redundant; should be integrated into rest of article, same with navigation terminology
• Lacks inline citations (see WP:FOOTNOTE)
• I see screens of black text and almost no wikification, mostly towards the bottom
• Prose is rather poor- contains fragments, disorganized

Thanks, AndyZ 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi AndyZ, thank you for your comments and suggestions. Looks as if I have a few weeks worth of re-organisation and tidying up to do. Murray Langton 09:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Following a peer review by AndyZ, the article has been substantially reorganised. There is still a lot of rewording/rewriting to do, espcially in the last half. Murray Langton 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Query

The last paragraph of "Reserve Reduction" reads: "One factor identified by Arthur and Rose which helps save fuel is to find an initial destination which is positioned so that descent to the initial destination starts immediately after the reclear fix." Should it read: "One factor identified by Arthur and Rose which helps save fuel is to find an initial destination which is positioned so that descent to the final destination starts immediately after the reclear fix." or am I just confused? Thanks, Paul at 70.150.135.204

Don't worry about feeling confused - everyone does the first time they encounter the concept of 'reclear'. As stated by Arthur and Rose, 'initial' is correct, though they didn't actually publish any proof. Due to trade secrets and 'no original research' I can't publish the theoretical analysis which conforms this.

For a 'reclear' flight to save fuel, you must require more reserve fuel for a flight to the final destination than for a flight to the initial destination, so the final distination must be further away from the origin then the initial destination. Murray Langton 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review 2

This is a request for a second peer review. The article has already been much improved as a result of the first peer review, a copy of which can be found at Talk:Flight planning.

Could folks please check:

• Spelling and grammar.
• Does general style/layout conform to Wikipedia standards?
• Please check for 'neutral point of view' - I work for a major flight planning vendor, so some bias may have crept in.
• How understandable is the article? I'm quite prepared to rewrite any sections which are a bit obscure (and have already done so several times).
• If there are any pilots or flight dispatchers out there, could they check for technical accuracy?

Sorry, due to 'trade secrets' and 'no original research', I can't provide much in the way of references.

Thanking all reviewers in advance. Murray Langton 09:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Response 1

I have done a bit of spell checking and minor copy editing on your Flight planning article. It is, I think, very well written, though it would benefit from a few diagrams. I will try to keep coming back to it from time to time-- it's a lot to take on at one bite if one is unfamiliar with the subject.

One section you might want to try to work on: Flight planning#Calculation is written in how-to language after the first sentence. I realise this is a natural form for this section, but it really ought to be made descriptive, instead.

Excellent work. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mwanner for your swift response and helpful comments. Murray Langton 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Response 2

I think there should be some images added to the article- for instance take a look at the article Aircraft, Taxiing, Great circle, Aviation, and other articles for several images of aircraft, and Image:Flightplan.PNG for a relevant image. Preferably, at least some of those lists should be converted to prose (paragraph) form. Plenty more wikifying can be done, and more links can be created towards the bottom half of the article- please see WP:BTW. The trivia section should be removed and incorporated into the article. It would be helpful also to cite the one reference according to WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES - {{Cite book}} can be helpful here. Though I note that you mentioned that not many references can be added, I think that several WP:FOOTNOTEs can be added, underneath the cite.php method (see WP:WIAFA criteria 2(c)). For example, numbers and figures should definitely be cited- for example, nearly 400 metres below sea level.<ref>Last, First. [http://www.deadseais400mbelowsealevel.com Dead Sea]. December 28, 2007. New York Times. Accessed on February 31, 2006.</ref> (It would be very helpful though if you gave correct information :) Finally (for now), as stated above, the Calculation section should be reworded so that it no longer is a how-to (there is a wikiHow for that). Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AndyZ for your comments and practical suggestions. Murray Langton 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Response 3

In the LEAD information should be presented in order of importance. The second sentence says that planning by small pilots is different from that of commercial pilots. Is that really the next most important fact after what flight planning is? I would suggest rewriting the intro (1) what is flight planning (2) when did it start (3) why it is significant. Also, there is a sentence stating "this article..." Avoid self-reference. Kaisershatner 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kaisershatner for your comments. I'll certainly look into rewriting the introduction. Murray Langton 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

Based on the above comments, I can draw up a partial list of things to be done to Flight planning, though I may well add more items if other comments are received. Murray Langton 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite introduction. (Done Murray Langton 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC))
• Eliminate 'how-to' from calculation subsection. (Done Murray Langton 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
• Consider a few images. (Done Murray Langton 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC))
• Reconsider lists.
• See what footnotes and/or references can be added.

Airway routing is listed as the required routing for ATCs; however, I believe this is only preferred in North America where navaid routing proves to be more efficient. Now, there is a subset of routes based on where you begin and end that make up the preferred routes (DAFIF use to site this back when it was free) and, until recently, military training routes. I think the flight plan page should be merged with the flight planning page. Intrepidwerx (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

UK Gallons

UK gallons are illegal for trade purposes in the UK and dependent territories. Is is true to say that fuel may be expressed in this unit? Blaise 14:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There may still be a few aircraft around with their gauges calibrated in UK gallons, so it is helpful if a flight planning system can report fuel requirements in units which match the fuel gauges. Murray Langton 21:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Change of wording

I am not 100% that I am correct with this change so I will add it here. I think the first sentence needs to be changed to the second sentence with "weight" changes to "mass" and "gravity" changed to "volume"

When fuel is measured by weight the specific gravity of the fuel must be taken into account 
when checking tank capacity. Specific gravity may vary depending on the location and the supplier.

When fuel is measured by mass the specific volume of the fuel must be taken into account 
when checking tank capacity. Specific volume may vary depending on the location and the supplier.

--Clawed 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'mass' is probably technically correct as far as a physicist is concerned, but 'weight' is the term used within the airline industry.

On looking at the wikipedia entries for specific gravity and specific volume, I am inclined to think that 'specific gravity' is the appropriate term to use here. Note that the former is a number without any associated units and hence independent of metric/imperial systems, while the latter has units and value which depend on the units of measurement.

Murray Langton 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Flight Planning Providers

As part of the 'See Also' section, there is a short list of firms who provide flight plans, generally for a fee. To reduce the scope for advertising, I would recommned that the only links here should be to Wikipedia articles, i.e. to flight planning providers which are sufficiently 'notable' to have their own Wikipedia article. Murray Langton (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)