Talk:Aviation

Aviation v air transport

What is the difference between "Aviation" and "Air transport"? I propose that these two articles should be merged. Do I have a seconder? --GrahamN 00:10 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I think that air transport is only a part of aviation. I added a partial list of the different aspects of aviation to the aviation entry. Jghiii 01:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

You may well be right, but I can't at the moment think what the difference is. Please could you give me an example of something in aviation that is not to do with air transport? --GrahamN 02:06 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Well, to me, "air transport" would mean carrying passengers to a destination. Some might argue that air cargo, like fedex, flying tigers, bulk airfeight, etc. is also air transport. I don't agree, but for this discusion let's say that is. Even combining these things, there is still a whole myriad of other aviation activities.

For example...

There's recreational aviation. That is, personal aircraft that are used for things like sightseeing, or just the pleasure of flying. This would be with aircraft like small single-engine planes, restored vintage planes, ultralights, and even gliders.

Then there's observation and research. Police departments all over the country use aircraft to investigate crimes. And research groups, like universities and NASA use aircraft to collect information about the atmosphere and other areas of science. There's Search and Rescue.

Agricultural application (aka crop dusting) is a really big business.

And of course there's military combat operations.

I think that all of these are not covered by the term air transport.

Air transport, plus all these others, plus a few I've probably forgotten, combined make up the category of aviation. Jghiii 04:03 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with user Jghiii; there are many aircraft uses that do not characterize air transport.

Where is the aviation-modern aviation merging discussion? I can't find this but I think we should merge the two, since aviation itself characterize a modern invention. Jesvane

And upon all things, it would be much quicker to simply place all the Articles having major relation to Aviation (Kittyhawk, Commercial Transportation, etc.) unser the simple topic of Aviation. Its much quicker to search for, and it does sum it up quite quicly and well.

I disagree. These articles should remain separate, linked from Aviation as appropriate. This is the way a Wiki encyclopedia should work, combing the virtues of an encyclopedia with the advantages of hypertext. treesmill 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Checking more and more on all of the Wiki aritcles, quite a few are stubs or otherwise. If I have freetime, I'll edit some and add extra information of possible. Otherwise, its still suggestive that we merge a good amount of them to reduce confusion. Some, if not most, of the Aviation Articles are very similar, and they don't tend to be very extreme on size. Simply merging one or two could make it a quicker and more informative read, and possibly prevent it from being a stub.

Links

OK, I've added a few links. Maybe some kind of seperate AviationWiki would be better for that, but c'est la vie, I say. I'll put up a few more pages (IFR/VFR/...) User:Qwitchibo

Isn't this See Also section getting a little too big? It's basically just another "List of aviation topics". I suggest shortening it to just "list of..." and mabye some other topics related to aviation but not aviation as such. (for example "Meteorology")Trevor MacInnis 05:11, 26 Jun 2004

I intend to write on `Personnel Licensing' - How the licenses are issued to the personnel linked with the operation of aircraft. My request is to have `Personnel Licensing' as one topic under aviation. I am new to the wikipedia contributions and forgive me if i make some errors.

What is the main article for human flight?

What is the main article for human/mechanical flight? Human flight and mechanical flight do not redirect anywhere at present. Aviation and aeronautics are both stubs. The aeronautics article seems to have a dodgy definition ("aircraft navigation") and to be confused whether it is a superset, subset or synonym for aviation. The fullest article I've found so far is aviation history, which one would intuitively presume was only about the historical aspects rather than being the main article. Nurg 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Aviation stub

Is this for real? "1 in 3 flights in the 1980's went down" and "Aviation started in Portland, Oregon"?

Surely this could be updated to contain some real facts?

Thank you for noticing this obvious vandalism. I've removed it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Oregon and learned to fly there. The contention that aviation "started" in Portland is absurd. The one in three crash rate is equally ridiculous unless it's taken out of context from some extremely narrow perspective; both were properly removed.

ref. air transport, heartily concur that it is not accurately regarded as a synonym for all aviation. Apart from recreational ('general') aviation is sport flying specifically (including aerobatics). Air transport is an important component of military aviation but has nothing to do with most combat functions of aircraft.

Feel free to ask me about aviation subjects. I work and write in the field. btillman3@cox.net

ATC

The last bit of the ATC section includes text that is not directly related to ATC: security and safety.

I propose creating "Aviation Security" and "Aviation Safety" sections on this page and moving that text to those sections.

Thoughts on the content of these sections?

My intitial thoughts:

Aviation Security - Need for security (maybe list of major terrorist acts against aircraft) - Current strategies (air marshals, airport security, restricted airspace, improved cockpit doors)

Aviation Safety - notable changes over the years - Agencies responsible (U.S. & EU) --Jerelabs 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the ATC section here at all? It has its own article, all that is needed is a wikilink. treesmill 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quality e.g. Stealth

This article really needs a major rewrite. I'll mention just a couple of points as examples: Stealth - the one direct example given, U-2, is not stealth technology (though it did fly pretty high, it was clearly visible on the Soviet radars). The SR-71 in the photo for the Stealth section is also not Stealth (according to WP:SR-71 it ironically had one of the largest Radar signatures of any aircraft, detectable at several hundred miles away, due to its Radar-reflecting hot exhaust). The point about heat due to high speeds is valid for all supersonic aircraft, Stealth has more to do with its Radar evasiveness than its speed. Also the statement about US fighter aicraft being 'dominated by Lockheed Martin' sounds strange. Again this article needs a serious rewrite; I would suggest for the writer to try to check out facts and use links to existing excellent articles already on WP. Crum375 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a major rewrite of the article, but I didn't do much with the military aviation section — could someone who cares/knows more about military aviation take a look at that? I think there's still too much detail there, compared to the other sections. David 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the military section back down a ways... now it looks a little too sparse for me. I think the intro paragraph could have some more information and still be relevant. I do like just having a list of types and examples, though, if people want more information they can dig for it. The information that was in there before (HUD, G-suit, radar cross section, etc.) is a bit much for the scope of this article. Phydeaux 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article still needs attention. It starts by suggesting that aviation "refers to the activities surrounding human flight and the aircraft industry". Aviation is not confined to human flight, unmanned aircraft have been significant since ww2 and are becoming very much more so. The 'aircraft industry' is just one part of aviation. It is full of information that belongs, and is in most cases duplicated in, other less general articles. The sections on civil aviation, general aviation, military aviation and ATC are all better covered elsewhere, all they need is links. It is questionable whether it should include any reference to space flight, since the word implies airborne flight, though again a link is probably reasonable. It needs a serious prune. treesmill 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Image overload

(copied from User talk:Jeffreythane#Aviation)

I have reverted (most of) your edits to this article. It is an article about aviation in general, not commercial aviation in particular. The article seems to already have sufficient photos (as in roughtly one per main section), and it's worth remembering what Wikipedia is not (Collections of photographs or media files). Probably a good idea to discuss the photos on the article talk page to get the opinion of others. Thanks/wangi 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

summarise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and diesembarkation of passengers

summrise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and disembarkation of passengers and describe the documention to be carried on domestic and international flights.

• I vote no: that's way out of place in a general article about aviation. David 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aviation user box

Aviation fans, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.

{{Template:User aviation}}

Note that this is attached to the Wikipedians interested in aviation category, and so placing this userbox on your page also adds you to this category.--PremKudva^Talk 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the actual userbox and just leaving the code, since adding the user box here adds this talk page to the Wikepedians iterested in Aviation category.--PremKudva^Talk 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

China and aviation history

I removed the claim that the Chinese invented aviation with kites — it would be just as easy to claim that arrows, spears, boomerangs, paper darts, or even thrown stones were the first flying machines. Likewise, the Chinese hot air lanterns, while they float, are not really relevant to aviation, and again, there are probably similar objects in other cultures. I did leave in the story of the Chinese man flying in the kite, and added the Greek legend of Icarus with it. David 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to remove these parts,like Kongming lantern,while it is not so sophisticated as the modern french Hot air balloon,it is in nature the first lighter than air flying machine.And manned Kite,why not a ancient glider?I cann't find the diffrence betwwen the chinese manned kite and Armen Firman's gliders.It's all the same in nature.Furthermore the greek Icarus was a legend or myth,if we took account the chinese myth who could fly,I will find the chinese claimed legendary flying myth far ancient than greek Icarus.Don't mix up legend and history.--Ksyrie 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And tell me why the chinese hot air balloon Kongming lantern are not relevant to aviation?If you can find the same objects in other cultures,I will be glad to write it down in this article.Don't mix up arrow or thrown stones to aviation,we here talk about can really fly,at least in air for minutes not seconds.A chinese kite can fly in air for days,why not a flymachine?--Ksyrie 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Many cultures in history have built devices that can move or launch things through the air, from boomerangs to arrows and spears to the lantern that you mention, and listing all of them would be excessive (I believe that China also invented the gunpowder rocket, which would be at least as relevant as the lantern). Note that I did leave the mention of the kite together with Armen Firman's glider, just trimming it down so that all of the pre-modern section takes only a paragraph (this is a history summary, after all, not the main history article). I haven't had an opportunity to read critical commentary on human kite yet, and it's not clear to me from your notes whether the flight took place around 500 BCE or 500 CE. If it was 500 BCE, I think we all need to understand how reliable independent scholars think the source is -- that's why I put it with Icarus for now, until we have more information. David 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've just given the article another rewrite, trying to find a compromise. The lantern is still in, but I'm trying to keep all pre-modern aviation to a single paragraph (since this is just a summary), and have removed the lantern and kite-festival pictures, since they're only marginally relevant to aviation as a whole (I'd be more inclined to include the kite photos in an article on aerodynamics). David 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Boomerang are not realy flying machine.Something like an arrow.At least the real flight should be in air for 10 minutes.--Ksyrie 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By that criterion, the Wright Brothers' first flight was not a real flight. David 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More generally, we can manipulate the definition flying machine so that prehistoric humans invented it, Australia invented it, China invented it, early Islam invented it, France invented it, or the U.S. invented it (among many others), but choosing any of those as the true beginning of aviation simply lets the article become a battleground for competing nationalist agendas, and we don't really want that in a Wikipedia article. Let's just list a few of the innovations without getting into that kind of debate. I agree that we should acknowledge kites and the kongming lantern, but only briefly, and not at the cost of excluding other equally early or earlier contributions. David 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing external links

I've removed the external links section — it's a magnet for promotional link spam, and nothing there really had a lot of value for a general article on aviation (the link to the glossary and the PBS series were pretty marginal). David 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tightening up environmental impact section

DPM64 raised a good point about compacting this section a bit, since the article is an overview. I agree with removing some of the more specific statistics and references. I tried to make DPM64's edit of this section even denser and more economical, though I do feel that the specific information about CO₂ and ozone is indispensable and have replaced it in condensed form. I appreciate the flourish that "hot air balloon" adds to the opening of the section; I modified this to emphasize the point it makes, which is that the whole spectrum of powered flight produces emissions. Cyrusc 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I've done a bit of rearranging to keep related information grouped together, but hopefully I haven't let out any of the crucial details. I've also changed the terminology a bit — a "commercial aircraft", for example, could be a Piper Cub taking people sightseeing for hire as well as a 747 on its way across the Atlantic, so I tried to get at what I think you meant (very large aircraft). Note also that contrails can form behind props as well as jets — they were common behind bombers in WWII — but they don't form under all climate conditions (I once read a military weather manual that talked about how to avoid leaving contrails). David 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there's now a main article on Aviation and climate change, I trimmed this section down fairly aggressively — a long discussion is out of place in an overview article. David (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry, I was trying to see who is in the WIkiProject Aviation members category and there is no one there, am I the only one using the userbox ? I feel odd. Other matter, I found that the PPL article is quite short and can be merged perhaps, I also found a good description of certifications at Professional certification, shouldn't be the certifications merged in one page and link from others? TopTopView 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why my writing comes out in small? TopTopView 10:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality assessment

I've promoted this article from "Start" to "B" on the quality scale — it's the ideal length for a survey article, is well-structured, covers all the major topics, and is adequately cited. I think it would be a mistake to go into any more detail in the subsections, since we have links to the main articles already. David 13:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Under list of Major Aircraft Manufacturers there is a sub note of Tupelov merging with UABC which needs a citation or source, i will search for it and update as necessary. Will also add a few more companies to that list.Rgp2130 (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great. Note that the list includes only civil transport aircraft manufacturers, not manufacturers of military, business, or private aircraft. David (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've moved the external link See how it flies: a new spin on the perceptions, procedures, and principles of flight from here to the Flight article. I think it's important to keep this article focused on aviation as an historical/cultural/political phenomenon, so a pilot-training link didn't really belong here (even though it's a very good one). David (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures

There are far too many pictures right now for an article of this length. I'd like to trim it down to at most one picture for each section. Please let me know if people have any preferences. David (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "military condensation" pic which to me is a "pretty" pic but just padding and had a meaningless caption. Also I've respaced the black and white pics at the top. I don't think the article now looks crowded (it has 9 pics) so I would not support removal of any - Adrian Pingstone (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Record-setting flights

I removed an anonymously-contributed section on general aviation record-setting flights, since it's out of place in a general survey article (and could easily grow to be enormous). David (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Military occupations

I think that the Aviation article is too broad to put into this category — it's a whole field of endeavor rather than a single occupation. Would it make more sense to add articles about specific aviation-related occupations like aviator instead? David (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Aviation in the military covers a very broad range of occupations. There are a few of the current USAF/USN specialties, but not in any comprehensive way. I was hoping that by placing the broad subject into the category I could encourage others to create more articles.-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First powered flight

We need to avoid any agendas about the first powered flight — it can get especially touchy because some countries (e.g. Brazil, New Zealand) have their own national champions to compete with the American Wright Brothers, and it gets down to a national-pride battle, which doesn't belong here (for the record, I'm Canadian, so I don't have a national stake in this). The Wright Bros are the most widely-accepted, but I've linked to the article on the controversy (First flying machine) to make it clear that they're not the only candidates, and to let readers dive into the details if they're interested. Editing the article to say that they made the "second" powered flight doesn't help things, because it suggests a certainty that doesn't exist for any of the candidates. David (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to revert the Second flight thing, but your solution is much better. --McSly (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. Alberto Santos Dumont still is the most widely-accepted. When I read something else, I wonder if someday it will became true, as a story that became history as people tells the tale over and over again. Anyway, I wasn't alive in early XX century, so I can't tell for sure. What I can assure is if we ignore now who did the first powered flight, near 100 years after, will someday historians found out the truth? I suggest a mention about this polemic in this article or a dedicated article. I don't believe the first powered flight is an irrelevant issue.Tchico (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I've read, Santos-Dumont made a powered lighter-than-air flight in 1901 (in other words, a steerable balloon or dirigible), not a powered heavier-than-air flight like the Wright Brothers did. The first person to make a human-powered, lighter-than-air flight was Jean-Pierre Blanchard in 1784, and the first person to make a machine-powered, lighter-than-air flight was Henri Giffard in 1852. The Santos-Dumont #6 dirigible that flew in Paris was a massive improvement over all dirigibles that came before, being significantly more maneuverable, but it missed being the first powered flight by at least 49 or 117 years (depending on how you count) and doesn't even belong in the heavier-than-air category. David (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Santos-Dumont made a powered heavier-than-air flying machine. With 14-bis in france it was a airplane, not a ballon. You need to read more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.178.156 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Santos Dumont is the only First that can be assigned with proof of evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.35.13 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Verify tags

There are a lot of general areas that don't have any proof. Some areas that don't have any verification:

• The bottom half of "history"
• General Aviation
• Air Traffic Control

Just thought these areas needed some verification, especially since there are only a total of 6 notes throughout the entire article. I just thought that seemed a little sparse. Zoke (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing

I am amazed as to how this article made no reference to Bartholomeu de Gusmão the very first man to build and travel on a hot-air device!

--62.169.67.134 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have added your information to the article. Are you able to add a citation of the source of your information? To read about citing sources of information please see WP:CITE. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aviation versus Aeronautics

There is common confusion between these two terms, and while sloppy usage is becoming less rare, the terms are not interchangeable. Aeronautics, (literally the study and activity of sailing the air) can encompass all forms of flight within the atmosphere, though traditionally it referred more to ballooning, due to the earlier success of balloons. Aviation (French, from Latin avis, bird) really refers to winged flight, which includes heavier-than-air craft, but not balloons or airships. As heavier-than-air craft have become the dominant forms of flight in recent decades, the use of the term aviation has gained in popularity, but largely in activities where lighter-than-air vehicles were simply overlooked. If the intent of this article is to include all forms of aerial transportation, then the article should be titled "Aeronautics", with a clarifying section on the term "aviation", and perhaps "aerospace" as well.Globalmindcollective (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GMC. There is already an article called Aeronautics and inevitably there will be some overlap from each of these articles to the other. So long as the information in each article is adequately supported by references and in-line citations that information is satisfactory where it is. See WP:Verifiability. On the other hand, if the overlap becomes significant there is a good case for rationalising the two articles by removing some of the duplicated information from one article. The best way for carrying out a rationalising exercise of this kind is to use this Talk page to alert other users and give those who are interested the opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the cutting and pasting. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

importence of english language by T.sreenivasreddy

English is West-Germanic Langauage that is developed in England and South-Westernic during Anglo-Saxno era. English is an International language and it is one the most popular languavge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.66.252 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What about artillery shells?

If one looks at the section about non-lethal_shells where shells for example can be used to distribute propaganda leaflets, it becomes obvious that this is a form of air transportation. The question is just whether this should be included into the section about aviation. Modern artillery shells do have wings and sometimes an internal rocket. There is an example of such a shell here.--hulagutten (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Gulfstream V NASA.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gulfstream V NASA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gulfstream V NASA.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

New name for Weber Aircraft

I heard that the new name for Weber Aircraft is Zodiac Seats US LLC. Is this true?

Gustav Weißkopf

Can someone mention Gustav Weißkopf at the history section ? See here KVDP (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aeronautics vs. aviation

You are invited to join in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Aeronautics_vs._aviation — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See Merger proposal below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Aeronautics be merged into Aviation. There is much duplication between the content of these articles and there appears to be no universally accepted distinction between them.

Here are some dictionary definitions (culled from an initial discussion here):

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/

• aeronautics: the science of designing, building, and operating aircraft
• aviation: the activity of flying aircraft, or of designing, producing, and keeping them in good condition
• aviator: an aircraft pilot

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

• aeronautics: the science or practice of building or flying aircraft
• aeronaut: a traveller in a hot-air balloon, airship, or other flying craft
• aviation: the flying or operating of aircraft
• aviator: chiefly dated a pilot

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

• aeronautics: 1. a science dealing with the operation of aircraft

2. the art or science of flight

• aeronaut: one who operates or travels in an airship or balloon
• aviation: 1. the operation of heavier-than-air aircraft

2. military airplanes

3. airplane manufacture, development, and design

• aviator: the operator or pilot of an aircraft and especially an airplane

Chambers twentieth century dictionary (Edition unknown)

• aeronautics: the science and art of aerial navigation
• aeronaut: a balloonist or airman
• aviate (verb): to fly mechanically, navigate the air
• aviator: an airman, flying man
• airnam: An aviator

Crane, Dale; Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition (Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2)

• Aeronautics: The branch of science that deals with flight and with the operation of all types of aircraft. Aerodynamics and aerostatics are both branches of aeronautics.
• Aviation: The branch of science, business, or technology that deals with any part of the operation of machines that fly through the air.

Wragg , D; "Historical dictionary of aviation," (History Press, 2008)

• Aeronautics: ... an all-embracing word for balloons and airships (aerostation), gliders and aeroplanes (aviation).
• Aviation: This term applies to heavier-than-air craft.

Several show a general distinction between aeronautics as the science of aircraft flight vs. aviation as the practice, though Oxford sees aeronautics as covering both while Merriam-Webster thinks aeronauts are confined to balloons and airships, and Crane curiously sees aviation as embracing the "science" of operations. Wragg's definition confines aviation to heavier-than air, yet in direct contradiction to this his historical dictionary of "aviation" covers aerostats as well. Generally there is also a vagueness about whether one can "fly" in an aerostat or whether say an engine-powered airship is a "machine". From an encyclopedic point of view this whole semantic muddle suggests to me that there is no sense in treating them as separate topics. The rest of the world seems happy to use both indiscriminately, with "Aviation" the more widely used of the two (a quick hit count on Google suggests around ten times more). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as clearly distinct, just as per the dictionary sources given. Are we planning to merge medicine and human biology? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Clearly the definitions show almost total overlap in these topics. A section in the merged article should probably cover the differences in opinion in definitions. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Science" vs "Activity" is pretty clear to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Except, most of the dictionary sources given don't actually support that view. OED, Crane and Wragg are all inconsistent with it in their different ways, while for example Oxford and Cambridge differ as to whether the practice of manufacturing (producing or building) is part of aeronautics or of aviation. There's nothing clear about all that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The wp:DICDEF probably isn't very helpful here. Historically though, aviation is what birds (fr:avis) do, while aeronauts are "sailors on air". Few today, though, would speak of an the day to day running of an airline's flight operations as aeronautics, that is aviation. Keeping the science and technology articles under aeronautics is a fairly natural way of distinguishing the subject areas. Hatnotes in each article to explain the distinction are warranted. The aeronautical industry makes products. The aviation industry operates them. LeadSongDog come howl!

The dividing line is not as sharp as you suggest. Historically, aviators were just aeronauts concerned with the heavier-than-air side of things (see my news clipping relating to the next vote). Then ballooning died out and for half a century aviation became synonymous with aeronautics. Nowadays balloons have made a comeback and this perceived distinction between science and practice has been plastered over the top. An aeronaut practices flying and doesn't just study it - a degree in aeronautical engineering does not make you an aeronaut, only a trip into the sky can do that. Technically any passenger on a jumbo jet is an aeronaut - the pilot being that sub-class of aeronaut known as an aviator. Should we really go deleting all aviation-specific material from the Aeronautics article and vice versa? My view is that, in practical encyclopedic terms, that would be a nonsense. Also, we need a top-level entry article that covers the whole lot. What else to call it but "Aviation"? And having done that, the Aeronautics article has so little unique content left it is best merged into the main article - Go read it, it's mostly just aviation bits copy-pasted across. However I would agree that, for things like Categories, the distinction can sometimes be useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Merge Difficult call. There's a clear difference between the meannings of the two words. Aeronautics clearly specifically refers to the flying activities (including design & construction of aircraft, whether heavier or lighter than air), and I would argue that (for instance) airport ground-handling equipment would come under the heading of "aviation" but not "aeronautics". (Incidentally, historically what birds do is fly. Aviation is a recent coinage: the OED dates it to 1866, a translation of a work by Nadar, who I imagine was writing about ballooning.) I can, however, see the desirability of avoiding having articles which almost completely overlap. In this case it would seem that "aeronautics" (an archaic word in any case) is completely contained within "aviation". So, merge.TheLongTone (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI: M. Nadar has accordingly founded "a society of encouragement for the study of aviation, or aerial locomotion, by means of apparatus heavier than the air," or, as it might better be called, a society for encouraging competition with birds, - The right to fly, The Spectator Archive, 5 May 1866. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article. Your comment above seems to use this quote to support the use of aviation solely for HTA, which I dont think it does: I would read it as defining aviation as aerial locomotion and then sying that Nadar is concerned with HTA aviation. Of course. if LTA flying is excluded from aviation, there is no case for merging the articles since there would be a substantial amount of material in the aeronautics article. Incidentally CH Gibbs-Smith has quite a bit on early LTA work in his book Aviation. TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave that quotation out of its historical context. As it stands alone it is ambiguous but sources such as Wragg and Merriam Webster share the view I suggested. My point is that there is too much confusion out there for any clear distinction to stick. Where do you get the idea that there is enough material independent of aviation to justify an article on aeronautics? Did you follow my suggestion and check out the current articles? There is almost nothing in the aeronautics article that is not covered better in the aviation article - even down to its section titles - and it has been like that for a decade. It has always been, and remains, an embarrassment to all who want it kept. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. I said that if LTA was excluded from "aviation" then there would be a substantial body of material which would necessitate keeping the aeronautics article. Since I am arguing that aviation includes LTA (if it isn't we need a Wikiproject Aeronautics for airships and balloons!) I am not saying that there is enough material independant of aviation to justify a separate article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries.TheLongTone (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Philosophically, the intent is aviation - nearly all facets of aeronautics support the intent of aviation. Without the act of aviating, supporting operations, and ancillary activities surrounding aviation, there would be no need for or expression of aeronautics. We would not dream of, build, and operate flying machines without the intent of flying them. In that context, and given the high degree of overlap and confusion in this matter, aeronautics seems a more reasonable subset of aviation that facilitates the broader topic of man-made methods of flight. I would also support including lighter than air flying machines as part of aviation as advanced weather tracking and GPS navigation for hot air balloons, and improved propulsion systems for blimps and zeppelins increase the degree of human control despite their achieving lift through buoyancy. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "aeronautics" should be the science of unnatural flight article, while "aviation" should be the practice of unnatural flight article. "aerodynamics" covers natural flight, while "aviation" and "aeronautics" does not. "aerostatics" is for lighter-than-air. "aerospace" should also be separate. We have aritcles on hydrodynamics and hydrostatics, but are missing one for hydronautics. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)