Talk:General aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon


"General aviation (GA) encompasses all civil aviation other than scheduled airline flights and government aviation." -- I'm going from memory here, but isn't all government non-military aviation also GA? For example, police, fire fighting, search and resuce, and so on. I think the word "government" should be changed to "military". (No objections noted, change made.)


I've got a few issues here. 1)I work for a charter airline, which makes us comercial aviation, but my company has a MEDEVAC contract ans so we operate medical flights and the pilots must hold a commercial licence because they are being paid. i would therefore classify med flights as commercial aviation. I thinks that if the pilots are being paid for their services it makes it commercial aviation and many of the examples of GA in this article should not be here. 2) Except for the few aircraft we have that operate at high altitude, very few of our flights operate IFR. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see that my above comments are adressed in the GA section of Aviation, I guess its just this page that has to be reworked to reflect that info.Trevor MacInnis 00:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I think you have it wrong. Whether something is GA or commercial aviation has nothing to do with whether the pilots are paid or not. Flight instructors are paid, and that's definitely GA. Basically, GA is part 91.

Yes, I just checked. The FAA defines GA as 14CFR91.

Pilot certificate[edit]

Earning a pilot certificate is NOT easy. If you mean "easy" in terms of availability of flight training, and cost in the US as compared to Europe or other nations for example, then I agree with you. Anyone who thinks flying is as easy as driving a car for example will not be flying very long. Please don't promulgate the myth that flight training, passing the many rigorous exams, and keeping one's license and ratings current is "easy".

In the U.S., general aviation is not limited to Part 91 (Private, non-commercial/revenue operations). Part 135 on-demand charder and corporate ("industrial aid") flying is also general aviation. Revenue operations, other than flight instruction and sightseeing flights operating within 25 nm of the departure airports and returning to the same airport, require an FAA air carrier certificate and the pilot and aircraft must meet many other requirements not required of Part 91 operations. By the way, non-military government flying is considered "Public" operations. Public aircraft (owned by the US government) are exempt from many of its own (FAA) regulations. Nice isn't it?

It's also "prohibitively" expensive in Europe as a result of the high taxes attached to almost everything there, in keeping with the social engineering mindset of most of Europe (keep the average person from flying, driving a fast car, etc. by taxing him/her out of the market).


I'd love to see some discussion of the history of general aviation in the US. As I understand, in the 70's it was quite a popular hobby, and up to 20,000 small planes were sold a year... then the 80's became a dark age, lots of lawsuits and awards, and all the manufacturers of small aircraft pretty much dropped out... then into the 90's legislation was passed to limit the manufacturer's liability and it has come back a tiny bit, but still only ~2,500 small planes sold a year in the US. I came to this article looking for more info on this (this is all I know -- not enough to contribute it!!) -josh

Geographic bias[edit]

There is a strong geographic bias in the article towards the U.S. Whilst I don't think there's a problem with the content as it stands, it could do with being placed in a better international context. I've marked it with a tag accordingly Andrewferrier 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I've rewritten the page to remove excessively narrowly-focussed or US-specific information, and provide a simple introduction to GA in general. I don't think detailed discussions of the cost/benefit of private light aircraft ownership really belong here, nor do the specifics of FAA part 91 regs . David 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "General Aviation" outside North America?[edit]

A good example of the common definition of GA in North America appears here:[1] "General Aviation, which includes all flying except for military and scheduled airline operations, makes up more than 1 percent of the U.S. GDP." However, during a discussion on Talk:Civil aviation, User:Treesmill has pointed out a UK example[2] that defines GA as "All Civil Aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire", which might be much narrower, depending on how "air transport operation" is defined — basically, GA there might be only private aviation.

Granted, Canada and the US together account for well over half of the world's GA operations, but we should still make sure that the article takes into account what general aviation means to people outside North America. Can anyone else give local definitions or citations from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Latin America, Australia/New Zealand, etc? David 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion somebody noted that earning and maintaining a PPL is not an easy task. In reality, I believe that the ease of which someone can accomplish this can only be determined on a case by case basis and therefore should not be incorporated into any factual article about general aviation. Personally, I did find it reletively easy to acquire my PPL.

Majority of Air Traffic[edit]

It is asserted that the majority of air traffic is General Aviation. It would really be a good idea to back that up with a reference, as it seems pretty counter-intuitive to me as a non-pilot. --Booch 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This one's U.S.-specific and a few years out of date, but in 2001 general aviation accounted for 79.82% of all non-military U.S. flights[3] David 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. It is counter-intuitive, but it's also quite accurate. Commecial aviation (United, Delta, etc.) doesn't put near the passenger miles through the sky that general aviation does. - Mugs 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about passenger miles, but definitely number of flights and probably flight hours. David 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Added stub tag. This article surely needs doesn't begin to do justice to the diversity and importance of general aviation worldwide. Additional images showing the range of aircraft (say, from a Flybaby to a Gulfstream) would be useful. The Safety section is generally unsourced and of questionable accuracy. There are excellent data on GA safety available from AOPA ASN and the NTSB...more authoritative information would be a great plus. Cmichael 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite and additions[edit]

Just did a pretty extensive rewrite and some additions, particularly involving the utility and safety of GA. Relied heavily on info from AOPA sources, which are generally considered to be authoritative. I don't think I coded the citations correctly, and would welcome some help on this. I'd still like to expand the list of examples of GA activities to include a brief description of each one. I also admit to being a GA booster, and would welcome well-cited criticisms of GA to balance out the article. Cmichael 07:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite. I removed a lot of the advocacy stuff (despite the fact that I'm also a private pilot and a big GA fan), both because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia and because it was all U.S.-centric. I also added some more accurate stats — according to most of the aviation publications, GA (involving light aircraft) is about 7 times more dangerous per hour than driving in a car, roughly equivalent to driving a motorcycle; however, I didn't find an authoritative government source for the motorcycle comparison, so I simply cited the numbers comparing GA and airlines from the NTSB. David 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
David: Thanks for adding the International flavor to the regulatory information...I was wanting to get there, but didn't have the information close at hand. If I went overboard on advocacy, I apologize. But, on reflection, I think I was responding to the histrionic slant that I perceived, and continue to perceive, in the two safety paragraphs of the article. As ChadScott correctly points out, all of the comparative safety numbers are slippery. Nobody really knows how many hours general aviation flies, how many per-passenger miles are either flown or driven. All we have are estimates, then statistics and comparisons built on those estimates. At best, they are all WAG’s.
I respectfully disagree that the AOPA numbers (which I had posted) are inaccurate or even less accurate than the NTSB numbers. For example, I quoted AOPA as saying that there were 321 fatal accidents in 24.4 million hours of flight operations. You quote the NTSB as reporting 1.31 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. Both organizations are reporting the same thing...the AOPA numbers cite the raw data, while the NTSB converts the data into the standard "per 100,000 hours" metric. (Here is the math: 24,400,000 / 100,000 = 244. 244 * 1.31 = 320. That's pretty close to AOPA's 321. The difference is probably due to rounding.)
The real difference between the AOPA's numbers and the NTSB's is that, cognitively, 321 accidents in 24.4 million hours "seems" pretty safe, while 1.31 per 100,000 "seems" pretty dangerous. Cmichael 07:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't find a source for the motorcycle comparison because it's inaccurate. GA opponents have been trying to compare airplanes to cars for years and it just doesn't work: airplanes aren't cars. The conversion from "flight hours" to "hours driven" or "flight miles" to "miles driven" is like trying to convert apples to oranges. You can massage the numbers to demonstrate either one is safer than the other. That said, I do like how you have presented the raw numbers and drawn obvious conclusions comparing scheduled to unscheduled (general) operations (apples to apples). -- ChadScott 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

safety comparison[edit]

To put the safety statistics into meaningful context, there should be additional statistics for travel by railroad, bus, auto, and maybe walking/hiking. Even some comparison to being struck by lightning, or fatalities from bowling and swimming would be useful. Some might be hard to put into a 1:X per activity hour form, but surely a range could be approximated. —EncMstr 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the statistics are surprisingly hard to find and even harder to compare. For example, do you compare the chance of dying per mile, the chance of dying per hour, or the chance of dying per calendar year (given the average number of hours a pilot flies and a driver drives)? Do you count fatal accidents or fatalities? If you count fatalities, you'll need numbers on the average number of passengers in a GA flight, and I don't think those are available anywhere. David 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, there definitely are challenges. Several dimensions should be presented: per hour seems more useful than per mile for my way of thinking, though someone planning a cross country trip would think of it the other way around.
Have you heard the bit of conventional wisdom that the drive to the airport is statistically the most dangerous part of the journey? About 1992 AOPA published statistics indicating that was wrong, at least for GA. In the end, it's up to the reader to decide which statistic is relevant. —EncMstr 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a good source for fatal automobile accidents per mile and per hour in the U.S. or some other country? One problem with hourly figures for GA is that they're sometimes based on estimates from avgas sales, which are tricky (both because of differences in fuel burn, and because some GA planes burn Jet-A, mogas, or diesel instead of avgas). David 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been chewing over this for a couple of weeks now, and I honestly think the best thing to do is take most of the safety section out of this article, make some general reference to the fact that safety varies from one segment of general aviation to another because of the range of activities included under the category "general aviation," reference the aviation safety article, and have done with it. The current wording of the section has a histrionic flavor to it, in my opinion. The comparisons are purely speculative, for all the reasons already cited here by others. The citation of the statement about the dangers of bush flying in Alaska is weak, if one tracks it down to its origin. In point of fact, most of general aviation safety is controlled in the cockpit, by the risk management decisions that each individual pilot makes. Finally, if you look up airlines, rail transport, cycling, walking or other forms of transportation, you'll find a lot of information about how that mode of transportation works, its history, infrastructure, and what not, and very little about its safety. Let's leave most of the safety debate in the air safety article, where it belongs. My two cents. Cmichael 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aerial Burial[edit]

Put "aerial burial" back in list, as virtually all aerial burials, or ash scatterings, are performed by general aviation aircraft under Part 91 (US reg). Cmichael 06:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List cleanup[edit]

The length of the list of GA examples has become excessive, so I've tagged it with a cleanup template. Can we cut it down to 5–8 solid examples? If someone wants to create an article "List of general operations", we could move the full list there and link to it. David 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Maybe then we could concentrate on developing the article, rather than developing the list <wink>. Cmichael 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Done — I've created a new article List of general aviation activities and moved most of the list there. David 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

One Six Right[edit]

I've removed the section about the film One Six Right — I know that the film is well-loved in the U.S. general aviation community, but a lengthy description (or even a quick mention) is out of place in an article dealing with general aviation world-wide. David 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of GA[edit]

I just reverted some anonymous edits that added the U.S. airlines arguments against GA, but completely unsourced. I think it would be a good addition to the article, though, to draw attention to the current airline-GA dispute in the U.S., if we can come up with something balanced and properly sourced. We should also read through the article to remove anything that looks too much like pro-GA advocacy, again, to keep the article balanced. David 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "airline-GA dispute?" The only major disagreement I know about between the two segments of aviation, in the US at least, involves FAA user fees, and generally how to divvy up the costs of the air traffic control system. Both segments would like to shift as much cost burden onto the other as possible. Democracy in action. Are there other disputes? Cmichael 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm jumping in ahead of the (earlier) personal dispute below to answer this question. In the U.S., the airlines claim that GA clogs up the system and doesn't pay its true costs. GA advocates claim most GA doesn't operate out of major airline hubs, and most GA operates VFR (not requiring air traffic services). I think it would be valuable to add a paragraph or two giving a fair summary of both sides of the debate, with sources (e.g. not just my own observations of the number of GA planes on the IFR frequency, or someone's complaints about planes flying over his/her yard). David 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
David, you make my point. The dispute is simply over who's gonna pay for the ATC system, and digresses into a p*ssing contest about who uses what parts of it from time-to-time. Cmichael 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes! I do not want private pilots over my property, or any other property for that matter. I pay taxes and work for a living, yet these rich jerks get to fly over whenever they want, making as much noise as they want, for as long as they want. It devalues my property and ruins my quality of life. Pilots are completely unrestricted in where and when they can fly. Cars are restricted to roads, why not airplanes? There needs to be more public oversight and local control of pilots. Ever since I started filing noise complains with the FAA they make it a point to fly low over my property as much as possible. The FAA refuses to talk to me anymore and won't take my calls, because they're all pilots. Pilots won't listen to me because they're all self-righteous neocons who don't care what the public thinks. My group opposes recreational aviation in ALL ITS FORMS. We are gaining members every day, everyday people who are fed up with pilots with their noise and their screw-you attitude. It is our mission to put an end to recreational aviation. There is no reason why they can't fly the airlines like the rest of us, except their own sense of self-importance. The only way I would agree to general aviation is if pilots were restricted to specific flight paths during civil daylight hours and (most importantly) were forced to pay those who they fly over in exchange for putting up with their noise pollution. We arrest kids with loud stereos so I don't see why we can't jail pilots for the SAME REASON!
-- 06:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC) a proud member of STOP THE NOISE!
This comment made me laugh out loud. You're so misinformed I'm not even sure where to start setting you straight. I'm willing to bet you live near an airport that existed far before you moved there, right? All I can suggest to you is to do a little research before you embarrass yourself like this... every point you just made is false. -- ChadScott 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So typical of pilots. You immediately start trying to correct me and justify yourself without even taking any of my complaints into consideration. You don't even care. How's this - I'll make it simple enough for you to understand:
1 - Your airplanes make noise.
2 - Your airplanes fly over my property.
3 - Your noise over my property depreciates the value of my property. (It does not matter who was where first. If you weren't there, my property will be worth more.)
4 - As owner of that property I deserve compensation for your depreciation of its value.
Is that simple enough? I am not misinformed and I don't need to be "Set Straight". YOU need to be set straight. There is no reason your loud, dangerous, pollution-spewing gas-hog of an aerial dirtbike needs to be over my property. Any travelling you need to do you can do via airlines like the rest of the population. Any other recreational reason is totally unnecessary waste of public resources. 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1 - Everything with an engine makes noise, them's the breaks. All aircraft are required to meet noise standards, despite what you think. People who live in the desert deal with noisy dirt bikes, people near lakes deal with noisy boats, people near ski slopes deal with noisy snowmobiles. Life's tough.
2 - You live near an airport, don't you? Go ahead, admit it, it's okay. I bet you didn't know the airport was there or figured it wouldn't be that big a problem when you purchased the property, right? It's a very common tale. That doesn't make it the airplane's fault any more than its the big rig's fault for driving right by your house when it's on a major throughway.
3 - It's not as if the airport wasn't there before. If they just built the airport, then I can see how your argument at least has some substance, but since airports are only disappearing, your argument is a bit specious.
4 - Maybe, but good luck with that. You act as if these pilots are targeting your property when you're likely just right in a common path to a runway, navigational aid, or the like.
As for your other points: Major airlines serve about 100 airports in the United States out of 2500. That's 1 in 25. Most people live less than 30 minutes from an airport but don't realize it because the major airlines simply don't serve them. You might be surprised to find out that every airline pilot started their life in one of those "pollution-spewing gas-hog of an aerial dirtbike," many of them going into deep, deep debt to score their dream job.
Next time you envision some rich guy flying his highly polished flying machine burning pure liquified money, try instead to see the reality of a barely-making it student paying over a hundred dollars an hour with an only-slightly-better-off flight instructor just to get that next step on his way to his dream career. While recreational flying does exist, you might be surprised to discover that most flights are instructional in nature.
You're so blinded by your hatred for what you don't understand that you can't see reality anymore. I've met many people like you... they sip the kool-aide so regularly that any other viewpoint or possible reality seems obstructed by "those damn noisy machines."
If you visit the airport you hate so much, you might find what you interpret to be rich fat cats flying their multi-million dollar machines to really be ordinary folks who work ordinary jobs who share a love of flying through the air, much like some people love sailing and others love skiing. A lot of them are just students, learning a skill they view as the gateway to their dream job. Sure, there are some fat cats, too... anything's like that... but there are far more ordinary, genuinely nice folks, living on ordinary wages from their ordinary jobs. -- ChadScott 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You should have no problems with restrictions then. Airlines fly from point A to point B on a strictly mandated route under strict controls. Therefore student pilots wishing to join the airlines should have no problems doing exactly that. Flying off of their mandated routes would be punished with the revocation of their licenses. As far as recreational pilots, I do not care how nice they are or how much fun they are having, they are still depriving the public of peace and quiet for their own enjoyment, which the public will refuse to tolerate any longer. If they're all poor then I'll support any tax increase that prevents them from flying until such time as recreational flying can be stopped. There is absolutely no justification for recreational flying and it WILL be stopped. The sky belongs to the public and should be managed according to the will of the public, not according to the will of AOPA and a few thousand pilots. In my eyes the AOPA is just as bad as the NRA. Plenty of nice and otherwise sane individuals feel the need to own murder weapons, which endangers the public and creates problems for law enforcement. But for some heroic failure of a reason this vocal minority gets to impose their will upon the public. It will not be tolerated any longer.
-- 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(a) Almost none of the above statements is true of the airlines (they request and get reroutings on almost every flight, including GPS-direct, just like GA flights do when they're IFR), and (b) why is this discussion going on here? This page is to discuss the article — if anyone would like to discuss the pros and cons of GA, I'd be happy to host the discussion on my private user page if no one can find a better discussion forum. David 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is being discussed here because I believe I have a legitimate viewpoint that the public should be made aware of. People researching general aviation on Wikipedia should be informed there is opposition to it. I wrote about the opposition but it was removed. I assume that if I put it back it will be removed again, so I am making an effort to make people aware here that my point of view is a legitimate one with a real group of real concerned citizens who share it and not the solitary rant of some crackpot. -- 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks — that's actually partly back on topic, finally (the topic of this page is the article, not GA). I think that a "Criticisms of GA in the U.S." section does belong in the article, but it has to meet two criteria that your original edit (and most of the discussion here, on both sides) fails to meet: (1) it has to be well documented with secondary sources and contain no original research or personal opinion (pro- or anti-GA) — your experience with planes flying over your house or your (incorrect) guesses about how airliners are routed by ATC, or my (possibly also incorrect) belief that pilots are mostly decent middle-class folk, are all irrelevant to writing a section of a Wikipedia article; and (2) it has to cover both sides of the debate equally and fairly, without trying to lead the reader to agree with either side.
The anti-GA web site you mentioned is not at all well known (and I don't know how you're involved with it, but there might also be a conflict of interest), so it's not really useful as a source any more than [flying blog] would be — they're too minor to be players in the debates. The best place to start, then, is to gather links to credible, important sources on all sides: maybe AOPA representing the pro-GA side, the ATA representing the anti-GA/pro-fee side, a major environmental group representing the anti-GA/anti-pollution side (if there is such a thing -- most of their arguments are against airliners, not light aircraft), and one or two outside sources such as major media outlets commenting on the debate or publishing interviews. Testimony read into the recent congressional hearings on user fees would also be a good source. David 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think, in all honesty, you're the more extreme viewpoint here. You can call everyone who disagrees with you a neocon all you want, but the truth, demonstrated by you here multiple times, is that you hold the extreme viewpoint: all flying aside from large commercial carriers should be forbidden because YOU and a few others don't like the noise.
Small aircraft serve a much larger purpose than you understand and every time you get something delivered by FedEx, UPS, or DHL, you're supporting GA because that's the mechanism that got that package to you. If you ever need an organ transplant, you'll be thanking GA because that's the mechanism that will get that organ from where it was harvested to where it needs to be to get transplanted. In the event of a natural disaster that cuts off major roadways to the outside world, you'll be thanking GA for getting you out of there.
All of those airplanes need pilots, and all those pilots need to be trained somewhere, and that's another major purpose of recreational flying: training the future generation of aviators to fly the big metal tubes you're so fond of.
I've yet to meet a pilot who didn't take noise impact seriously, often following very long routings or departure procedures just to avoid a heavily populated area. -- ChadScott 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am greatly offended by the remarks of I am a pilot but:
1. I am not rich.
2. I am not a jerk.
3. I do not get to make as much noise as I want.
4. I am restricted as to where and, to a lesser extent, when I can fly.
5. I am not self-rightious.
6. I am CERTAINLY not a neocon.
7. I do not have a "screw-you" attitude.
I respectfully request an apology, sir. Cmichael 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
But you still support the rights of a minority group to impose over the rights of the majority? That's hardly a liberal way to think! You're letting your own desires get in the way of logic. There's no justification. Deep inside, you're a neocon, just like the gun nuts, you just won't realize it until they come for your airplane. Proper liberal thinking dictates that continual government oversight and personal sacrifices are required to keep the people in accordance with the will of the public. Recreational flying is 100 percent counter to this.
-- 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
In any event, this is the not proper forum to argue your issue. This talk page is meant for discussion of the article, not the airing of personal views. I'm sorry I wasted everybody's time (including my own) by responding to your comment, and I'm done with it now. Though, I'd still like to get my apology. Cmichael 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will get your apology. Stop the Noise is basically an anti-aviation legal-terrorist group operating on the east coast. They sue pilots. That's it. They use binoculars to get your N number and then sue you for whatever baseless charges they care to make up. When they lose they do it again until the pilot runs out of money or the court refuses to cooperate, in which case they file in a different court. They plan to do this until they can put a stop to anything they deem lowers their property values. (Most of them are landlords or developers.) They are calling this scheme "Justice by a thousand cuts." Recently they have expanded their activities to suing owners of motorcycles. Just google for them to find their previous run-ins with the AOPA and pilots in general. Right now their focus is on inciting public rage against pilots using the airlines' user-fees arguments. They figure if they can make aviation expensive that we'll all stop flying. They don't really care about the noise, they just want to drive their property values up, or gain access to airport land cheaply. The noise is just a convenient banner that they feel they can use to drive public opinion in their favor. Also, I note that this individual's IP address is close to mine; That's disturbing to me. I hope they're not spreading. I bet you're one of the Morton people who wants Mount Hawley closed, right? That's all north Peoria needs, more welfare housing. We aren't stupid. It's a cheap land-grab, and everyone knows it. You plan to build projects, wait 5 years or so, close them, and turn it into condos. -- 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS THE SORT OF HARASSMENT I EXPECT FROM PILOTS. HE IS HACKING MY COMPUTER TO FIND MY LOCATION. MY COMPUTER ADDRESS IS PROTECTED BY LAW AND I CAN SUE YOU FOR MESSING WITH IT! MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS! And for the record YES, Peoria DOES need more welfare housing, that's why we have a homeless problem! Selfrighteous idiots like you and your goddamn airport have no right to hold expensive land that would better serve the homeless downtrodden public. Peoria is expanding north and there's nothing you can do about it. You ARE going to lose that airport and I will personally take a piss right on the ramp JUST FOR YOU right before the bulldozers crush the airport office and turn the land into something PRODUCTIVE AND GENERATING WEALTH instead of burning kerosene for the sake of a bunch of cowboys! I don't see YOU people doing anything about Peoria's problems and I never will because you're the kind of redneckt hrowback that hides behind the internet and harasses those of us who PRODUCE MONEY FOR THE ECONOMY. In short I will ask you to LEAVE MY COMPUTER ADDRESS ALONE unless you want me to find you and kick your ass so hard YOUR GRANDMOTHER WILL FEEL IT! I know the Peoria police and I can have them arrest your delinquent ass 40 ways from next week so DO NOT think you even have a chance of getting in my way. I have Norton firewall so you have no chance to get me anyway but you are welcome to try if you want a meeting with the FBI who will hopefully ship your waste of space ass to Guantanamo Bay! -- 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for making my point far better than I ever could.
-- 03:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Like, wow. -- ChadScott 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my. I think we all understand, now. Cmichael 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, please read WP:NPA before posting again, sir. Cmichael 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My assertion that pilots are jerks is based on fact. If pilots are such great individuals why is it that almost every pilot who emails our group sends us death threats and insults and threatens to buzz our houses? You're no better than the gun nuts at the NRA. You can read pilots' emails to us on our web page at We have not yet had even one pilot say anything remotely resembling support for our group, only hate and threats. -- 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said several times I'm sympathetic to your complaint and I'm a pilot. There are constructive ways to help mitigate the noise you're experiencing and the methods you've used thus far aren't the right ones. Calling every pilot a jerk or neocon doesn't really help your case, either. You might find if you were constructive and reasonable, whatever cause there is for airplanes flying nearby your property could be addressed. Simply demanding they stop isn't constructive... I'm sure they're flying where they're flying for a reason other than to simply annoy you. -- ChadScott 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing AOPA link[edit]

I just removed a link to AOPA in the External Links section. We already have a link to, which links on to AOPA (for the U.S.) along with more than 60 other national GA organizations from around the world -- if we start linking to country-specific ones like AOPA, we'll end up with a very long section. David (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Airport Security[edit]

When an airport severs both commercial and general aviation, do passengers on general aviation flights have to go through the same security checkpoints as everyone else? Are there different rules about what can/cannot be brought on board the aircraft? Can a general aviation pilot carry a gun? A knife? I'm both currious about the answers to these questions and think that they might deserve mention in the article. Thanks. ce1984 (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this really fits the article, because there's no single answer — it depends on the country and the airport. Often, GA is far from the passenger terminal, and the space around the passenger terminal is restricted, but again, it depends on the airport. David (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General aviation. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General aviation. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 15:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


I have some doubts about including the table of "current aircraft". First off it is not all the current GA aircraft, just some of the ready-to-fly production types and even then misses many ready-to-fly UL and LSA types in production. It ignores kit built aircraft, non-certified types and aircraft built via other means, like plans, partial kits, etc. I have re-labelled it to try to explain that. If it was complete it would be a very, very long table. Does this serve any purpose in a general introduction article? - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I put this table here because I needed it otherwise, so I thought it would add some value to Wikipedia as I stumbled upon a good ref (flying's buyers guide). Of course it's limited to certified, in production types. An ultralight list would belong in ultralight aviation (but would be indecently long), a LSA list in Light-sport aircraft (already there), and a list of kits and plans in homebuilt aircraft. This certified GA table is more useful here than in certified aircraft. The point is to show some starter points to further explore through comparables : from the mentioned Cessna 172 you can explore Cessna's timeline and competitors, etc. Otherwise the only starter point is the random DA20 pictured. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I can understand the concept of providing links to some example GA aircraft, but even as a list of current production, certified light aircraft it is incomplete. For instance, the Vulcanair V1.0 is missing. The other factor is that it gives the impression that GA only includes certified aircraft, when GA includes ULs, homebuilts, LSAs, warbirds, gliders, balloons and many other categories of aircraft. I just think a table of one small corner of GA aircraft will leave readers with the impression that is all that there is to GA. Then there is the question of who will maintain this table, adding and removing types as they go in and out of production. Basically even for production certified types it will always be out of date, unless someone is right on top of it. I would rather have a short list of a few representative types. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
So maybe we should move it to General aviation certified aircraft. It may be US-centered but as it is the largest GA market, it should be the most representative one. The Vulcanair V1.0 had its FAA certification last December, maybe an importer is searched for. We should not maintain it as a borderline WP:OR table with specs from multiple sources, Flying's buyers guide is updated yearly. Making a list of representative types would be difficult to establish a standard (numbers produced, maybe?)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I would be fin with moving it to something like List of current production certified light aircraft or similar. I think it might be a battle to keep people from adding aircraft, though, especially through the year as aircraft go in and out of production. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
or maybe in the already existing Light aircraft, more adapted than here, which I did not saw earlier?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather see it as a stand-alone list, as Light aircraft is the same issue as general aviation, it includes everything 12,500 lbs and below, not just certified aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
OK then!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)