Talk:2023 in aviation

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Accidents 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. This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

In recent years we appear to have reached an unwritten consensus for inclusion in the "year in aviation" pages: only include major aviation events such as the launch or demise of an airline, first flight of a new aircraft type, particularly significant aircraft orders (typically >100 aircraft in a single order), and particularly significant incidents and accidents. We thus exclude the majority of light aircraft accidents, as well as run-of-the-mill incidents such as engine failures and runway overruns with minimal consequences. Events that are notable by other standards are not included unless they are significant from an aviation point of view.

If this is already set out in writing somewhere, I'd be pleased to know where. If not, perhaps we should attempt to do so. All comments are of course welcome. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This recent-years practice the content seem to be weirdly biased in favor of the commercial aviation industry & reeks not only of recentism, but also of undue weight of the commercial interests here. I mean - for example in the 1937 in aviation list there's included Amelia Earhart's flight & disappearence, but no mention how many Ju-52s were ordered by Lufthansa in that year...and I like it, because I expect to find important thing for that year's aviation, not what aircraft individual airlines were ordering back then.

The take-over of the "years in aviation" lists by the aircraft industry interests is a relatively recent development (starting with 2017 in aviation - and even then it's not as extreme as the situation is now), and in my opinion not one that can be sustainable, for the above reasons.

And in particular case of the

2023 Colombia Cessna 206 crash - it's a no brainer - while it's certainly not event comparable with Earhart's last flight, it's certainly notable enough to have its own aviation accident article, therefore it's significant from an aviation point of view. To exclude / censor it out of the list & pretend it hadn't happened would be just dumb. -2A00:102A:4012:AAC8:487B:4ED5:9E37:EE75 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

p.s.: I mean this list should cover all notable events in avition - if the aviation accident was notable enough to have its own article, there's no way to claim it's less important from an aviation point of view than a commercial airlines order (which is perhaps important from their view, but very rarely from an aviation point of view).-2A00:102A:4012:AAC8:487B:4ED5:9E37:EE75 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were over 200 general aviation accidents with fatalities in the US alone last year.[1] Hardly any of them were notable from an aviation point of view. Some were notable for other reasons, such as the death of an otherwise-notable person, and hence have their own accident articles, but none are included on 2022 in aviation. I think that is as it should be.

The recent Colombian crash is notable primarily because of the children's survival, but not because of the crash itself, which appears to be a run-of-the-mill engine failure of a light aircraft. I note that the apparent cause of the accident accounts for just one sentence in the corresponding article.

As to commercial airline orders, I agree entirely that very few such orders are truly notable – mega orders such as the 470 aircraft ordered by Air India in February being a clear exception. Hopefully we can reach consensus on where to draw the line. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please - do re-read my comment above more carefully. I said nothing about every aviation accident, I was very clearly arguing for inclusion of accidents which are notable enough to have their own article. You're still failing to give any argument against that.

I think it's kind of obvious - "This is a list of 2023 avition events. If an aviation accident is notable enough to have its own article, there's expectation it would be included in the list of that year's events".

(And that's how it worked before 2017, before "Years in avation" were being stealthily transformed into "Years in airliners orders & accidents, mostly" without changing the title.)

If you are disputing notability of the

2023 Colombia Cessna 206 crash

, take it to the talk there.

As for the aircraft orders - have you any argument supporting your view that some of them are notable from an aviation poin of view and why? Thank you.-2A00:102A:4012:AAC8:487B:4ED5:9E37:EE75 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the notability of the crash article, I'm disputing its inclusion here, just as I would dispute the inclusion of other run-of-the-mill aviation accidents that have their own articles for some other reason (2020 Calabasas helicopter crash is one example that comes to mind; it is notable only because a celebrity was on board, not for any aviation-related reason, and it is, quite rightly IMO, not mentioned on 2020 in aviation). There is nothing from an aviation point of view to distinguish these accidents from any of those hundreds of GA accidents that we both agree should not be mentioned.

Do you have any arguments as to why an exceptional order for hundreds of aircraft should not be considered notable for inclusion here? Of course there is more to aviation than just commercial aviation, but that doesn't imply that everything commercial should be excluded. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay that deals with light aircraft crashes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. It provides two solid examples of when such a crash should be in aircraft type or airport articles - 1) The accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or 2) The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

However, this also has regard for

prominence

. This would suggest that an accident like the Columbian Cessna 206 crash which received widespread global interest is a prominent incident. The fact the crash was cause by an engine failure is a moot point (how do we also know Amelia Earhart's crash was not also the result of a "run of the mill" engine failure- these were quite common in the 1930s!) It's the surrounding circumstances that make it notable!

I would make the argument that aircraft orders should be treated similarly, based on prominence. Eg. If it's the first order of a new type, it's probably worthy of inclusion. If it's an order that has been cancelled and the reason given was as a result of a crash, as happened with the 737 Max, that's probably something that can be included. Same if it is the first large order after the type was grounded. If a country ordered 20 KC-46s after the program struggled for many years to attract orders outside of the US, that would probably be something to include. Otherwise, wikipedia is not

an industry newspaper and this info is best dealt with in the orders and deliveries section of the aircraft article.Dfadden (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why does a page titled "2023 in aviation" not discuss the aviation that happened? How many flights (commercial and, if known, private) by how many planes from how many airlines from how many airports in how many cities in how many countries carrying how many people and how much cargo? That data might be elsewhere, but wouldn't a brief summary help put into perspective how many crashes there were? It's like summarizing a year of a sports franchise, but only writing about player injuries and drafts, without mentioning how many games they played and whether they won any. (Pardon me if this has been discussed a million times, but I don't see it on this page.) --2601:189:4100:AB0:7181:6E9D:B7DA:78DC (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]