Talk:Trainer (aircraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Sale of BAe Hawk[edit]

I think that this line: "the sale of the BAE Hawk to Indonesia in recent years has been highly contentious" is highly unneutral and rather unacceptable for an impolitical article, such as Trainer Aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I think it's an excellent inclusion in an article about training aircraft. The fact that the Hawk was a convertible trainer is the heart of the controversy. It's not "political" or non-neutral to say that the sale was contentious! -- Shannonr (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with first post, and I have removed it. There's not enough info for genuine context here, nor does there need to be. This appears to be a somewhat-contrived controversy anyway, typical of certain elements of the British (and American) press. To be honest, any type of aircraft can be armed, though of course their effectiveness would vary widely depending on the type; against "insurgents", they can be effective anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Training helicopters[edit]

There needs to be some mention of these here, both in terms of syllabus and types (both dedicated – e.g., TH-57 – or otherwise). In fact, an overview of the various stages of aircraft training and streaming for both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrews would be helpful, including the differences between civilian and military training. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


I've made a start at finding references for some of the claims in this article, and tried to flag the other major claims for someone who's more familiar with the subject. Help please! -- Shannonr (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article move reverted[edit]

Major changes to key articles should be discussed first, including moves and retooling. As Trainer (aircraft)is a key topic for aviation, this page needs to be here. There are other options available which can and should be discussed beforehand, including expansion of civilian information, and splitting off the bulk of the military aircraft material to another article. Thanks for your cooperation. - BillCJ (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page should remain where it is. It is linked from many light aircraft pages for general information on what a training aircraft is. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Keeping it all at one page encourages editors to keep it short and not wander off into WP:NOTMANUAL problems on "how to train a pilot." The military has the coolest trainer aircraft, but I hope the guy up front in the 737 got some training before he flew the flight I'm on, if you catch my drift... SDY (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Consider my wrists as having been well and truly slapped, sorry for not having discussed a move first, the article as it was and as it was going was well on the way to being an article to being about military trainer aircraft and military training and it seemed perfectly logical to make the move. I guess rather than making the move I should have considered spinning of the material into its own article. KTo288 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem - no slapping required - it's all part of the process!! I don't think anyone would object to a separate article on military trainer aircraft, splitting out some of the mil-only info. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Another move reverted[edit]

Another editor moved this page from Trainer (aircraft) to Trainer aircraft without discussion, or even an explanation. I objected in my mind when it was done, but did not revert it until now. "Trainer aircraft" is not a term that is generally used, usually just "Trainer", or perhaps "training aircraft". We usually have to pipe Trainer aircraft as "Trainer aircraft|trainer" anyway, so Trainer (aircraft) seems best to me. - BillCJ (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro needs editing[edit]

Most of the introductory passage has nothing to do with training aircraft. For example this adds nothing to an article entitled 'Trainer (aircraft)': "Some air forces contract-out training activities to private companies." Additionally, the whole section is full of weasel words like "some" and "many". I would recommend deleting all but the first three sentences, until a more suitable intro can be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"The right hand seat"[edit]

This part of the article should either be deleted or utterly rewritten! It's obviously not written by a pilot or someone with any insight at all in flight training. The SF260 and the RAF version of the Grob (Tutor) are both unique exeptions from the old and still overly common standard in side-by-side training aircraft having the student (or PIC) in the left seat! "It has become the norm...." is an obvious POV written without any real knowledge or source. It's also clear that the reasons given to this "right seat standard" in the text are also all assumptions by the author and not researched or taken from a source.--Towpilot (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is way too oversimplified and based on a ref dealing with one specific aircraft. Take helicopters for instance - student pilots usually sit in the right seat of North American helicopters, because that is where the pilot sits, for balance and also so he can use his collective hand to tune the radios when solo, but it varies from type to type. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead-in fighter training[edit]

There is no article on lead-in fighter training, is there a difference between that and advanced jet training? Cold it be included in this article as a subheading or a note under Advanced training? Chalky (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a bit different, depending on the country involved. If you have some refs then it could be added. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
article "advanced training and weapons instruction of pilot recruits ... a comprehensive avionics suite integrated by Rockwell, now part of Boeing. This includes a pulse-Doppler radar, INS/GPS navigation suite, EW self-protection systems and a stores management system." DMO "two seat aircraft primarily used for initial, cost effective fighter training to prepare aircrew for operational conversion" IAR 99 see ADVANCED COMBAT TRAINING SYSTEM - "efficient training in combat scenarios and reduced training cost of combat aircraft. The modular system includes a library of dynamic scenarios that can be preloaded or initiated by the ground station instructors. The choice of scenarios includes fighters, along with simulation of any infrared or radar guided missile, interceptors, air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft batteries, radars, chaff and flare countermeasures, collision warnings, in low or dense electronic warfare environments, and many other simulated or re-enactments of true to life combat situations." Elbit ACTS "system is based on data link technologies incorporated into navigation and display systems. The system generates virtual sensors & systems as well as multiple types of threats – both airborne and ground" Chalky (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Those refs look like they could be used to support a section on this, do you want to go ahead? - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)