Talk:Civil aviation

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

What is "licence plate" doing here? Aircraft have their own "licence plate" (Great Britain's aircraft begin with "G"; Germany's with "D"; France's with "F"; the USA with "N". --Sobolewski 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup notice

Somebody who knows enough about the topic needs to clean up the writing in the tagged section. The language in there had its paradigms shifted one too many times. --Adamrush 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My first inclination was to delete it (there's already an article on the Chicago Convention), but after staring long enough, I realized that I could convert it into a short section on Civil Aviation Authorities that was more-or-less relevant to the article. Feel free to tighten it up a bit more. David 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General aviation

Defining GA is tricky, since it's a matter of common usage rather than a precise regulatory distinction. However, it usually includes all non-scheduled, civil aviation, including air taxi, cargo, etc. For more information, see here [1] David 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'non-scheduled' above is incorrect, since many airlines conduct non-scheduled operations. The usual distinction in aviation is between CAT, Commercial Air Transport, which includes all passenger and cargo operations conducted for hire and reward, and GA, which is the rest. For example see http://www.gaac.co.uk where GA is defined as "All Civil Aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire" treesmill 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might be looking at a difference in usage between North America and the UK: it depends on how the UK define "air transport operations". For example, in North America, a King Air flying business people for hire definitely qualifies as GA, as does a Cherokee Six delivering courier packages to a small town. Would the phrase "air transport operations" include those in the UK doc? Commercial aviation is a huge part of GA in North America. David 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam Webster dictionary, which is US based, defines GA as the operation of civilian aircraft not under the control of a common carrier; also : such aircraft collectively and defines a common carrier as a business or agency that is available to the public for transportation of persons, goods, or messages. Your examples both fall quite clearly under the latter definition and so do not qualify as GA by the first. Further, although the FAA does not have a specific definition of general aviation, references to it in various Parts imply that the above definition is correct. For example Part 161.5 says Aviation user class means the following categories of aircraft operators: air carriers operating under parts 121 or 129 of this chapter; commuters and other carriers operating under part 135 of this chapter; general aviation, military, or government operations. treesmill 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some alternative definitions of general aviation. First, from Colorado Northwestern University, Aviation Technology:[2] "The 96% of U.S. aircraft and 60% of U.S. flight hours flown by other than major and regional airlines or the military. Often misunderstood as only small, propeller-driven aircraft. Even a large jet or cargo plane operated under FAR Part 91 can be a general aviation aircraft."

Next, from the Canada Border Services Agency, under the heading Telephone Reporting - General Aviation Aircraft:[3] "When general aviation aircraft enter Canada, they report to CBSA by telephone. Travellers on private, company-owned, or charter aircraft carrying no more than 15 people (including the crew), must call the telephone reporting centre (TRC) to get authorization from CBSA to enter or return to Canada. General aviation aircraft must land at an approved airport of entry (AOE) during CBSA hours of business. If the aircraft is carrying more than 15 people, the pilot has to contact the CBSA office at the proposed AOE in advance to arrange for customs clearance on arrival." (note that charter aircraft are explicitly included in GA here)

Finally, here's an excerpt from a press release from the Edmonton (Canada) airport announcing a new strategic management portfolio for general aviation:[4] "The newly created General Aviation portfolio will position Edmonton Airports to aggressively implement and achieve our General Aviation initiatives and goals by coordinating the appropriate resources. General Aviation activity includes private and recreational flying, flight schools and flight training, charter services, search and rescue, avionics, helicopter activity, corporate services, private charters, and spin off activities such as aircraft maintenance and air ambulance services."

Obviously, General Aviation is a bit of a fuzzy term — some people use it to describe only non-commercial flying, but most of the citations turned up by Google point towards a broader use including non-scheduled commercial flying. Note that the Canada Border Services site, for example, allowed for the possibility of charter GA flights with more than 15 seats, as long as they phone ahead first to make arrangements.

We'll have to figure out how to reflect this ambiguity in this article and, more importantly, in the general aviation article. David 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those examples, as you would expect, doesn't disagree with the one derived from FAR. However the others are from Canada, not the US. Possibly because aviation in Canada is regulated by Transport Canada, which unlike the FAA is responsible for all transport, not just aviation, TC uses 'general aviation' in its general sense. As you say, the article should reflect this. treesmill 09:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I don't think it has much to do with Transport Canada vs the FAA, because (as you've noted) "general aviation" is not a regulatory term in Canada or the U.S. Here's a U.S. example, from a web site sponsored by AOPA:[5] "General Aviation, which includes all flying except for military and scheduled airline operations, makes up more than 1 percent of the U.S. GDP." It looks like people in the UK use "GA" as a synonym for private aviation, but that usage isn't as common over here. Note especially [6], where many of the GA operations listed require a commercial license and a commercially-registered aircraft. David 12:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the references I provided demonstrate, this is not a US vs UK issue. It is possible to find almost anything somewhere on the web, so it important to give most weight to authoritative sources. Merriam-Webster sets out to be authoritative, though in isolation one cannot always rely on a non-specialist dictionary, however, taken together with the FAR reference, it is clear that the more limited interpretation has significant support in the US. It is also worth noting that the less limited interpretation is far from confined to the US in informal use, the obvious example being references to "General Aviation Terminal" meaning a terminal handling smaller aircraft. However, this is a name used for convenience, not a definition, but it does further illustrate that this is not a US vs UK issue. treesmill 18:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I parked at the General aviation terminal at Philadelphia International airport, the planes there included a Hercules and a cargo 737 in addition to my Piper Warrior. The general aviation FBOs here in Ottawa also service large transport jets in addition to bizjets, turboprops and light aircraft like mine (light aircraft are definitely in the minority). Again, I don't doubt that the usage you describe (limiting "general aviation" to private aviation) exists, but in the 30 or 40 airports I've flown into in Canada and the U.S., and the pilot organizations I belong to (including COPA and AOPA), GA has the same definition as in the General aviation article on Wikipedia. That said, I've posted to the GA article's talk page asking for examples of usage outside North America, so that we can broaden the article a bit. Thanks again. David 20:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've operated into KPHL quite a few times and I don't recall a GA terminal, and none is shown on the aerodrome chart, so it may well be that the aircraft you mention were not GA. In any case, as we have already said, size is not significant. The aircraft you mention may not have been 'common carrier' operations, though it would help to know whose aircraft they were. I also note that KPHL list its traffic as :- Aircraft operations: avg 1838/day, 41% air carriers, 28% commuters, 28% air taxi, 3% transient general aviation, <1% military which confirms the FAA definition. treesmill 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked -- the KPHL chart says "FBO terminal" now instead of "general aviation". David 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New name for Weber Aircraft

I heard that the new name for Weber Aircraft is Zodiac Seats US LLC. Is this true?--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]