Talk:Aircraft pilot/Archives/2012

Different categories of famous aviators

Personally I do not think JFK jr would qualify as a well know aviator. He may have been a well known public figure but this guy was far from beening well known for his flying.

(please sign your comments; presumably you are Captain433180) - I would agree at first blush, but the list does already run a continuum from the Wrights to people like Dennis Quaid and John Travolta. Then there's John Denver, sadly in the same category as JFKJr. It's a bizarre list anyway - no Ernie Gann at present? - but the community needs a decision what "well-known aviators" means. If it means "well-known people who fly or flew" it could be endless. If it means "notable people who are primarily known to history or currently for aviating" we might be able to make it more precise but less interesting (Branson in or out?) DavidBrooks 18:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry about forgetting the signature. Anyways, my beef was that when this incident happened very few people knew that he had valid licence, may it be tragic and thats one of the things that people will remember him for I still think its a weak addition. But I do agree that this list is a strange one and he should stay until there is a more clearly stated who/what qualifies. However, most people know that Travotla flies and as well as Harrison Ford (who is not on the list). To resopond about Brandson...I not sold on the guy but I would have to say yes. Captain433180 00:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No prob; I got scolded myself recently for the same thing. I think two lists: people who are primarily known as aviators and people for whom piloting is a factor in what we know about them. JFKJr would fit in the 2nd list, if only because of the notoriety around the accident. Some people are on the cusp; I'd put Bach and St Ex on the 1st list for example. I also think all the details about US certificates don't belong here and volunteer to branch it off. The pages relating to various ratings need rationalization anyway.

I can't believe I didn't sign the above... anyway, how's the list look now? Maybe I'll have time to hive off the ratings stuff over the holidays. DavidBrooks 18:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like what you have done. I will do my best aswell. This atleast attempts to separate things and not insult other people who think that someone should or should not be on the list.. Captain433180 02:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Relationship with Category:Aviators

I just realized Category:Aviators points directly to 128 entries (including this one, of course), and indirectly to several more. So is this list redundant? Perhaps this list should be limited to people of particular note. I think most of them in the Category list are "pure" pilots, but not all: it includes Harrison Ford, King Hussein, and W. Given that, does the list on this page actually include the most prominent members of each category? I'm not even particularly well-steeped in the history. David Brooks 00:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I have a more biased view on who an aviator is and also only a grasp on German and Canadian history. Captain433180 15:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Licences

• A Aerobatic rating differs COMPLETELY from an Aerobatic Instructors rating.Captain433180 05:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I figured that all the dry details about American and Canadian license requirements were detracting from the point of this article. Licensing is about regulation, not the joy of flying. Check out Pilot licenses, which preserves some of the original text. David Brooks 03:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Why did someone add licensing info when there is a separate topic for that... anyone else game for moving that to the licensing article???--Captain433180 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Licensing is a different topic. I am working on the Pilot licensing in Canada article. The ones for the US and UK are just as involved. There is no point repeating all that here. Icitrom 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

Patrick Weaver

To the anon who keeps adding Patrick Weaver to the list of "People largely known for their contributions to the story of aviation": please provide a justification here. The only Pat[rick] Weaver I can find connected to aviation is a mechanic out of Maryland. I can't find a historical reference. David Brooks 16:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Why is John Kerry on the list? Taking some flight instruction does not justify classification as an aviator or a contributor to the field of aviation. Dave 01:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to [1], John Kerry told The Boston Globe:

"Like most pilots, I'll fly anything I can get my hands on that I'm licensed to or allowed to [...] I have a commercial, instrument [pilot's licenses], and glider rating and also a seaplane rating. I've flown now for 35 years since I got my license back in '66."

With that said,[Aviator#People_from_other_walks_of_life_with_aviation_in_their_history:|People from other walks of life with aviation in their history]] seems to me to be a cumbersome and not-very-descriptive title. Drew 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It was my phrase, and I don't much like it either. So fix it! David Brooks 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, his second-class medical was issued Dec 2004, and hence is current for 3rd-class operations. His commercial licnse was issued in 1986. I suspect that the original comment may have derived its origin from a politically-motivated source :-) David Brooks 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This page's move

This is clearly the wrong title for the page. I suggest moving this back to "Aviator" and possibly adding the reference to the videogame in the disambig paragraph. That means an administrator has to delete the new "Aviator" disambig page. Alternatively (I never liked the page title) it could be renamed "Pilot (aviation)" but that would require redirecting 50 links. Any opinions out there? David Brooks 16:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I fixed it. You may now proceed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Co-pilot

Hi. Co-pilot currently redirects here. I will be changing the redirect to First officer, since that's almost universally how the term is used. --Storkk 12:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to call them First officer you´re right! Dagadt

I disagree with all of the above. Someone seems to have focused only on commeercial, regularly-scheduled aviation. All of these military aircraft have "co-pilots" - whether you like that term or not, it is the very common one:

B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, S-3 Viking, E-2 Hawkeye, C-2 Greyhound, C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter, C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster III, and AC-130 Spectre. 98.81.14.60 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pilot (spaceflight)

There's a very brief Rocketry stub with above title which it has been suggested comes to this page. Sounds a good idea. --Tony in Devon 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pilot numbers

"The United States Federal Aviation Administration estimates there are 609,737 active pilots"

I'm assuming this is just US pilots. --Gbleem 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, this article is weirdly written, and it feels pretty awkward reading it. Please normalize the article. 83.25.255.134 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Benefits

Why does the section on Avaitors in Space talk about the benefits that some companies offer?--Corbec023 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul needed

I think this article needs a complete overhaul. Here are my issues with it:

• Civilian section is broken into US & International. It should be a worldwide overview, or an overview of various countries, NOT USA versus the world.
• Civilian section is focused on pay rate, which is not the main reason most pilots take up aviation. Again, a very US slanted side is presented.
• Well-known aviators is not really appropriate. People like the Wright Brothers deserve a mention, but a list as big as this is not really needed. Possible move the lists to a seperate page.

Agreed. There already is a separate article titled List of aviators. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. It almost looks as if the two lists are very similar. Anyone other than the Wright Brothers we should leave in this article, or should they go as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippen (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Only military and airline pilots are mentioned. This neglects general aviation, recreation, glider, helicopter and possible others I have missed.
• I'm sure we could do with other sections too, such as "issues facing pilots today", "skills needed to be a pilot", etc

As a pilot in training (based in Australia), I'm happy to put some work into this article. I would like some opinions on the above points before we go tearing this article appear and rebuilding it though. Whippen (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article suffers from subject drift from the first paragraph -from speaking to an egalitarian agenda (anyone can fly), to the legal view of piloting as imposed by certain governments. It's not a mater of truth, but relevance. The term "aviator" may be extended to any pilot - be they unlicensed, uncertified, or unskilled. Mavigogun (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd mostly agree with that. Do you have some ideas on the direction the page should take?Whippen (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Point 3 complete. I have removed the list of aviators from this page, replaceing it with a link to List of aviators. There were a few (around 15) people who were on this list, but not the other one. I have moved them over, except for these two:

• Dennis_Smith
• Brian_Reed

Both of the above articles don't mention aviation, so I have left them out. If someone wants to add some aviation info to their pages, we can restore them to List of aviators. Whippen (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a woeful article. I just stumbled on it, I'd like to help but it is hard to know where to start. The history of aviation is an immense and noble subject, we must be able to do better than this. It might help if we deleted the entire section under United States that seems to deal exclusively with pilots pay scales! It reads like it was written by a disaffected member of a pilots' union, who cares what they get paid, this is a craft and vocation. Aviation is also truly international. It might be useful to eliminate the headings United States vs. International and go from there. Aren't ther some aviation enthusiasts out there who know this subject? Ex nihil (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The writing in this article is pretty abysmal. Doesn't anyone own a copy of Strunk & White?! --90.206.122.212 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

People from other walks of life with aviation in their history

I removed this section, mostly because its a pointless list. If you go back far enough, you could find a whole lot of famous people who had someone in their history fly a plane. If someone wants to put it back in, fine. Otherwise, I think the page is a lot better without it Macabe (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Military pilot

"Military pilots fly under government contract for the defence of countries" I think thae most historic military, and quite possibly most current operations, are performed to attack/conquer another country. Not for defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.147 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Defense" has been used to encompass all parts of a nation's military operations, such as with the U.S. Department of Defense. (That is not to say air forces have not been used in the defense of nations, such as during the Battle of Britain).69.115.19.58 (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Discuss proposal to merge Corporate Contract Pilot here. --Haruth (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A merge here doesn't make any sense. It's a specific sub-division of being an aviator, and at that, only in the U.S. If anything it could be up for deletion. The aviator article doesn't even have anything pertaining to specific types of licenses. It just references "pilot certification in the United States" The^FSAviator • T 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP not a soapbox

I have removed the following from the article (under the US Civilian section):

Since deregulation in 1978, and to a higher extreme since the turn of the millennium, virtually every passenger carrying airline has slashed their pilot pay scales and benefits in the face of fierce competition from low-cost carriers. Commercial and airline pilot pay can vary widely from company to company and industry to industry. In fact, Southwest Airlines Captains and First Officers both have higher salaries than their counterparts at legacy carriers. As of May 2008, median annual earnings of airline pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers were $111,680.[1] However, such salaries represent the upper level of airline pay scales. Salaries at regional airlines can be considerably less – though, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, median annual earnings of commercial pilots were $65,340, with the middle 50 per cent earning between $45,680 and $89,540.[1] Pilots making very large salaries are typically senior airline captains, while pilots making very small salaries are generally low-seniority first officers. A large variability in salaries can easily skew an average; thus, the use of median wages to gauge such things as salary. Where large gaps are seen between a median figure, and a lower-bound figure, this usually reflects those who do not stay in that particular field. Viewing this middle ground in context to the upper-bound numbers can give a burgeoning pilot an idea of what to expect if they are able to stay with flying as a full-time career. Based upon voluntary pilot reports, many United States airline pay scales are listed here:[2]. Most airline pilots are unionized, with the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA)[3] being the largest pilot labor union in the United States.

Bitterness over pay-cuts, lost pensions and airline management using Chapter 11 Bankruptcy laws to escape previously agreed upon labor contracts is increasingly finding its way into the public eye. In September of 2011, 700 union and non-union pilots marched, in full uniform, at the Occupy Wall Street protests.[4] The pilots carried signs with images of the partially submerged Airbus piloted by hero, Captian Chesley Sullenberger. The event was later christened The Miracle on the Hudson. After saving the lives of every passenger aboard the stricken airplane, later, Captain Sullenberger testified before Congress that he doesn't know a single professional pilot that wants their children following in their footsteps.[5] The fact that today antagonists of the occupation refer to an airline pilot as a "glorified bus driver" is not missed by history. Throughout aviation history some have tried to subjugate the occupation by throwing the pejorative prefix "glorified" at it. Long before the rise of glass cockpits and GPS, the term was used by those trying to oversimplify the occupation for their own gains, economic or other. As far back as the 1930's executive management didn't considered airline pilots the pioneers that Orval or Wilbur Wright were. This contemptuous opinion, and the term "glorified chauffeur" were brought up by management coalitions at the code hearings of the National Recovery Administration in 1933. Finally, a voice of sobriety remind them, "If the captain of an ocean greyhound can be called a glorified ferryboat skipper, if an eagle can be called a glorified sparrow, then an air transport pilot may be called a glorified chauffeur!" The New York Times (1933)[6]

This is in blatant contradiction to Wikipedia's policies - which state that WP should not be used as a soapbox. Please discuss her before reverting my removal. Wikipeterproject (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This, sir, is an article about airmen. Further, the section this verbatim is in regards civil, airline pilots. What's more, the elements included, by myself and other editors, is a NPOV disorientation or the most poignant issue facing airline pilots in the USA today; the atrophy of said occupation. In fact, the issue is of such high importance to the occupation that most pilots are discouraging their children from pursing it and both the Regional Airline Association and the Airlines for America have appealed to the FAA to help stem a much feared and predicted shortage of qualified pilots. If this were an article on the airline, I think your argument about it being some kind of a "union soap-box" might get some traction. Nevertheless, this is an article about pilots. Is ALPA the largest union in the realm of the occupation of pilot? Yes. Has Chesley Sullenberger said before the Senate Sub-house Committee on Aviation that he doesn't know a single professional pilot that wants their children following in their footsteps"? Yes. Have pilot adversaries used the pejorative term "Glorified Bus Driver/Chauffeur" in an attempt to belittle pilots throughout aviation history? Yes. I could go on, but all one needs to do is read the entry whose remove you argue for.

The people who come to this article to build a report at school, or educate themselves as to the pros and cons of being a military, civil or even recreational pilot are fully entitled to get a full picture of what they should expect. This article, before your edits, will do it. If you'd like to go over and edit the Airlines for America article to reflect the problems they are having competing amongst each other, then be my guest. It belongs there. The information critical to making a proper illustration of airline pilot concerns, however, is the domain of this article. If you feel you might have a constructive editing hand and make suggestions on how it could be, in your valued opinion, less POV, then I invite you to help me in doing so. But this section will remain.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's get some consensus on this before you keep reverting my edits. You've done it twice, a third time could get you into trouble. Let's talk about it here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Expressions like "this contemptuous opinion" are clearly not NPOV and the whole section (copied above) builds an argument using a range of unrelated sources - including, in some cases, primary sources. This is clearly a case of pushing an opinion and using original research to do so. I'd be happy for you to get an second opinion on this, but I am sure that any experienced editor with knowledge of Wikipedia's core policies will agree that what I removed should not be in the article. A final point is that a pay dispute in the US does not really add to the encyclopaedic content of this particular topic. I am sure there are other forums where this case can be made, but one really shouldn't use WP as a soapbox for this kind of thing. Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the text under discussion can be used here. It is all soapboxing, none of it neutral. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Dru of Id (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You people are on my list of most loved editors. I'll start my own article on problems facing airline pilots. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Soviet aviatrixes

The so-called "night witches" (nicknamed so by germans) were 588th regiment (night bombers on Po-2 biplanes). It should be added that there were also 586th (Yak-1) and 587th (Pe-2 dive bomber) regiments which did not have german nicknames. These were acting separately and must be mentioned as well.

Also there is no info on soviet aviatrixes before WW2 here. It should be added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.42.28 (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, added some info. Also, lists of pre-war flygirls are to be fiiled with translations from:

Pre-soviet and early-soviet: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зверева,_Лидия_Виссарионовна http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаховская,_Евгения_Михайловна http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Анатра,_Евдокия_Васильевна http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Голанчикова,_Любовь_Александровна http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Самсонова,_Елена_Павловна http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Долгорукая,_Софья_Алексеевна

The list of other soviet flygirls should be extended by selection of the soviet ones found here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Категория:Женщины-авиаторы In translation, of course.