Area 51 » Professional

followers

Follow It!

Announcements

@dj clayworth I don't disagree, do you have any suggestions? Aviators, Aviating, Aircraft Operators and Owners, Pilots? – joshperry Aug 13 '10 at 19:10

I like "Pilots" too. Not to discourage about aircraft owning, but to make it clear that we're not talking about fleet ownership. – DJClayworth Sep 20 '10 at 17:28

Regarding scope, I think the name should be narrowed to "General Aviation" and the audience should be widened to include everyone in GA, not just pilots. Pilots make up the majority of people involved in GA, but there are also roles such as engineers, a/c owners, admin staff etc who are not large enough groups to warrant having their own site but could still provide valuable information for pilots. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 14 '11 at 12:49

show 4 more announcements

This proposal is now in the Commitment phase — example questions are locked!

71 Example Questions (10 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 23 down vote

added by mkchandler Jul 2 '10 at 18:14

	Great on-topic question. I'd vote it up if I had any on-topic votes left. – Evan Plaice Jul 7 '10 at 23:42
	@Evan, I'll upvote it for you :) I was just skimming, but you're right, it's a good question (I'm not color-blind, but have friends that are). – Cyclops Jul 9 '10 at 17:53
	@Cyclops Thanks ;) – Evan Plaice Jul 9 '10 at 23:56

up vote 21 down vote

added by joshperry Jun 18 '10 at 2:16

@joshperry typo, loose should be lose. – Evan Plaice Jun 20 '10 at 7:38

fixed, thank you. – joshperry Jun 20 '10 at 15:43

Hope you have your light gun signals memorized. – Steve Kuo Jul 3 '10 at 7:33

Look at your kneeboard, since they all have the light signals on them now. :-) – Brian Knoblauch Dec 14 '10 at 17:57

up vote 20 down vote

added by joshperry Jun 18 '10 at 2:14

LAHSO stands for Land and Hold-Short Operations. It is very important at airports with intersecting runways. What they might ask you to do in a LAHSO is to stop before a certain point on the runway so that another aircraft can land or take-off from the other runway. You always have the option to decline if you're not comfortable, and you are responsible to know if you can land in the distance available (LAHSO distances for all airports with LAHSO operations are published in the current AF/D) Hope that helps! – Anonymous Mar 9 '11 at 2:17

up vote 20 down vote

added by J. Pablo Fernández Jun 19 '10 at 23:56

	Is it even legal? – Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 12:47
	I think it's legal, at least using deductive logic... The new Cirrus aircraft with the Garmin Perspective and XM weather lets you also play XM music channels. – joshperry Jun 24 '10 at 1:09
	There is nothing in the FARs prohibiting listening to music while flying. – Steve Kuo Jul 3 '10 at 7:32
	listening to your iPod over earbuds, otoh.. that might be illegal – warren Jul 7 '10 at 20:59
	A great example of being legally stupid. and a good question. – Dan Williams Jul 20 '10 at 14:43

show 3 more comments

up vote 20 down vote

added by n535 Jun 22 '10 at 19:05

	Have you seen one of these video.google.com/…. It's pretty neat how commercial airliners re-route traffic on demand. – Evan Plaice Sep 11 '10 at 8:10
	I think this is definitely an on-topic question, but it is very similar in nature to the question linked below. They could both be summarised as "What is the best practice to adopt in the case of [some in-flight situation]?". With a limited number of votes maybe we should consider avoiding questions that are too similar. area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/7029/aviation/…. See discussion: discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/20/30576 – Kevin Stembridge Jan 28 '11 at 13:53
	@Kevin If anything, this question is too general and should be made more specific (which would create more questions). If you're so worried about votes, just promote the idea and attract more followers. – Evan Plaice Feb 6 '11 at 5:11
	@Evan. Yes, on a Q&A site this question would be too general. For the purpose of defining the scope of the Q&A site, specifics are not as important as the essence of the question. You could replace "unavoidable violent storm" with "microburst" and the essence remains the same. As for your promotion suggestion, I'm already doing it. But that is not necessarily a solution to the problem of overlapping questions. What if every new follower decided to repeat this same question but use a different specific; microburst, wind shear, birds, etc.? – Kevin Stembridge Feb 6 '11 at 12:39

up vote 19 down vote

added by Jeff Aug 16 '10 at 21:58

up vote 13 down vote

added by J. Pablo Fernández, edited by joshperry Mar 14 '11 at 4:17

Curious, I feel this would be on-topic. It may be helpful for an aspiring pilot to know if time in a non-certified simulator was valuable or not. Do you guys feel like the site should be limited to only people currently in training, PPL, IFR rated, commercial, ATP? – joshperry Jun 24 '10 at 1:16

@joshperry I don't think so, I'm neither a pilot or pilot-in-training. I just worked in the commercial Flight Simulation industry for half a decade. I just think a distinction needs to be made between "people involved in aviation" and "people who've played Microsoft Flight Sim a few times". – Evan Plaice Jun 24 '10 at 2:15

As phrased, it's borderline. Change it to something like, "Can I train effectively using MSFS?", and I'd say it would be on-topic. – Cyclops Jun 24 '10 at 18:20

As a sidenote, I know of at least one training organization that is building 6 DOF (Degree of Freedom) simulators running software based on Flight Simulator. If you're interested Google "Project Magenta". – Evan Plaice Sep 11 '10 at 8:06

This is a good example question because it is borderline. But I think for a 16 year old kid thinking of being a pilot its a relevant on-topic question. @joshperry I think ATP pilots should be out-of-scope for the site because they will already have the infrastructure within their company to answer questions. Any answers they get from this site that are in conflict with their company's SOPs are automatically incorrect answers for them. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 14 '11 at 13:46

show 1 more comment

up vote 12 down vote

added by joshperry Jun 18 '10 at 2:13

up vote 10 down vote

added by Frank Szczerba Jul 21 '10 at 14:09

up vote 9 down vote

added by Jeff Aug 16 '10 at 21:57

up vote 9 down vote

added by TimS Sep 3 '10 at 13:24

up vote 8 down vote

added by DJClayworth Jul 27 '10 at 14:45

up vote 6 down vote

added by Frank Szczerba Jul 21 '10 at 14:10

up vote 5 down vote

added by joshperry Jun 18 '10 at 2:23

	I actually had to look this one up because I had no idea what it was. – Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 12:48
	There are quite a few off-topic votes on another proposal that is /just/ as frozen in time/changing as this one. – Adam Nov 25 '10 at 16:10

up vote 4 down vote

added by warren Jul 7 '10 at 21:01

up vote 4 down vote

added by warren Jul 7 '10 at 21:04

closed as off topic by Ethan, Carlos Heuberger, TimS, Brian Knoblauch, Mark Shuford Nov 13 '10 at 21:10

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I think the scope of this site should be widened to "General Aviation", which includes kit builders. According to StackExchange guidelines I don't think "Aircraft Kit Builders" would justify a site of its own. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 14 '11 at 13:53

@Kevin Stembridge - thanks for the on-topic vote :) – warren Jan 14 '11 at 14:32

I would definitely say kit-building would be a great topic for this site! – joshperry Feb 5 '11 at 19:24

up vote 4 down vote

added by Pieter Breed Jul 9 '10 at 13:42

I don't see this as really being on-topic as it pertains specifically to parts of flight training obtained during the IFR certification process and any answer requires a great deal of detail to be minimally useful. Furthermore, bad answers would be positively dangerous. – yock Nov 29 '10 at 17:41

A good answer might be a reference to good quality training material. If we are looking to be a reference site this is exactly the kind of question we should be answering. – DJClayworth Jan 18 '11 at 15:21

I think this is on-topic. @yock I agree that a correct answer requires a lot of detail but that doesn't make it off-topic. As DJ Clayworth points out, a good answer will point to the correct reference material. A bad/dangerous answer will get voted down. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 28 '11 at 14:08

up vote 4 down vote

added by warren Aug 10 '10 at 21:05

up vote 4 down vote

added by Jeff Aug 16 '10 at 22:02

which country ? – Carlos Heuberger Oct 21 '10 at 15:07

up vote 4 down vote

added by John Lemberger Sep 28 '10 at 14:17

up vote 3 down vote

added by Pieter Breed Aug 12 '10 at 12:36

did you mean "pitot heat"? – Jeff Aug 19 '10 at 18:36

I did yes, thanks! – Pieter Breed Sep 29 '10 at 10:18

up vote 3 down vote

added by John Lemberger Aug 23 '10 at 15:32

To be more specific, could you confirm what type of certification you are talking about? I'm guessing its some kind of engineering certification for the aircraft. In which case I think this is an on-topic question. The question is more relevant to engineers than to pilots but I think the scope of the site should extend to engineers of general aviation aircraft. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 14 '11 at 13:40

up vote 3 down vote

added by Martín Marconcini Nov 24 '10 at 11:56

up vote 3 down vote

added by Jaime Soto Jan 5 '11 at 19:19

up vote 3 down vote

added by Vince Jan 18 '11 at 12:56

up vote 3 down vote

added by nibot Mar 15 '11 at 22:04

up vote 2 down vote

added by Jeff Aug 16 '10 at 21:51

I believe this was made so all youtube commenters can make fun of it ;) – Martín Marconcini Nov 24 '10 at 11:53

up vote 2 down vote

added by testerab Feb 3 '11 at 0:27

	In GA, pilots often club together to co-own aircraft - are aviation-related legal issues on-topic here, or off-topic? (Or does it depend on the question?) – testerab Feb 3 '11 at 0:29
	Good example question. I think any questions related to owning aircraft should be on topic. No more votes left though. :( – Kevin Stembridge Feb 3 '11 at 8:06
	I'd say on-topic, I'd love to have more information on sharing the costs of owning an aircraft. – joshperry Feb 5 '11 at 20:11
	What is a "syndicate agreement"? – nibot Mar 15 '11 at 22:04
	It's an agreement between a group of people who co-own an aircraft. This is quite common, it allows you to share the cost and work of buying and maintaining a plane. – testerab Mar 16 '11 at 0:01

up vote 2 down vote

added by testerab Feb 3 '11 at 0:31

up vote 2 down vote

added by Fox Cutter, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Mar 6 '11 at 12:29

Good question. I would say on-topic, if I had any votes left. – Kevin Stembridge Feb 9 '11 at 21:49

up vote 2 down vote

added by roman m, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Apr 5 '11 at 20:23

	I would love to see community answers to this. :) – Chris Burt-Brown Mar 29 '11 at 14:04
	.. you could, oh I dunno .. fly? – warren Mar 29 '11 at 15:02

up vote 2 down vote

added by roman m Mar 12 '11 at 6:45

I think this is a great example of a question that might arise, and although there might not be a definitive answer, one could at least read through the debate that would inevitably follow and come to their own conclusion. – Canuk Mar 30 '11 at 0:07

up vote 1 down vote

added by warren Jul 7 '10 at 21:10

why the "nage" vote instead of "on-topic" or "off-topic"? – warren Nov 17 '10 at 0:09

I think this is a very good example question that helps to define the scope boundary of the site. If I had any more votes left I would mark it as on-topic because it is asked from the point of view of someone wanting to fly a real aircraft. If the question was reversed it would be off-topic. i.e. How much would flying a real aircraft help with flying a RC aircraft? – Kevin Stembridge Jan 21 '11 at 10:46

up vote 1 down vote

added by DJClayworth Jul 27 '10 at 14:39

closed as off topic by kkeilman, jan, Joe, Brian Knoblauch, Mark Shuford Nov 13 '10 at 21:09

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	Is a pure equipment question on topic? – DJClayworth Jul 27 '10 at 14:40
	From the target audience as defined, "pilots and those training to become such", I think pure equipment questions like this one would be off-topic. If the target audience is expanded to flight aficionados, that's a different story. – warren Jul 27 '10 at 18:21
	This is a very good example question because it is right on the boundary. I think this question should be on-topic because it is the type of question a pilot might ask and as far as StackExchange sites are concerned there isn't a better place for it. Any stack site that was created to answer this type of question would probably not justify its existence and should be subsumed by this site. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 14 '11 at 13:35

up vote 1 down vote

added by Jeff Aug 16 '10 at 21:53

up vote 1 down vote

added by John Lemberger Aug 23 '10 at 14:14

Would the answer to this question be specific to an '81 182? If not I'd remove that part. – joshperry Feb 5 '11 at 19:22

up vote 1 down vote

added by TimS Sep 3 '10 at 13:22

up vote 1 down vote

added by John Lemberger Sep 28 '10 at 14:12

Hi John, Can you clarify what an A&P is? I'm guessing its a mechanic, based on your comment that links to here. Of course, it wouldn't be a problem on the actual forum because anyone who didn't know what an A&P is would not be able to answer the question anyway. But in terms of deciding if its on-topic or not there could be some confusion. – Kevin Stembridge Jan 14 '11 at 13:24

up vote 1 down vote

added by yock Nov 24 '10 at 2:45

up vote 1 down vote

added by Kevin Stembridge Jan 28 '11 at 13:13

I'm assuming this would be on-topic. The specifics of the question are not important, the idea is to determine if it falls under the umbrella of general aviation (which I consider to be on-topic) or air transport ops (which I consider to be off-topic). See discussion: discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/q/24/30576 – Kevin Stembridge Jan 28 '11 at 13:40