Talk:Flight length

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.

Spam

This article has more links to that carbon site than real information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apete2 (talk • contribs)

The article's purpose is to define the duration of flights and record the classification. Perhaps you will be so kind as to find some other definitions other than 'that carbon site' which has so far proven to be a good source for providing this information. Oliverwk 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although one could argue that Carbonfootprint.com has useful information, it is a site that exists primarily to sell products and services. This is clear from the links to shopping pages and the "Gift Ideas" section at the bottom of its home page. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided part 5 specifically discourages this. --Explodicle (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part five of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided would also reffer to Thomas Cook airlines which also is selling products and services. Due to the illusive nature of these definitions it is not unacceptable to use only one source for all definitions as many provide conflicting opinions. There doesn't seem to be any Governmental website that defines flight duration. If someone does come across such a document please feel free to remove the Thomas Cook airlines and Carbon footprint website definitions. Oliverwk talk 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight length between specific destinations

I want to know the distance between Texas and London(uk) in km. Maybe this article could have a table of flight distances between major world cities.

...failing that. Anyone know of another website, with that info?? -- Harry Wood 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC

Obvious Propaganda

these descriptions of stage lengths this page needs further discussion

This is rather an ambiguous statement with a conclusion but no reason. Would the contributor please elaborate on what is meant by the comment. Oliverwk talk 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition appears to be wrong

"In aviation, the flight length is defined as the time airborne during a flight." Should flight length be measured in distance (km or miles) instead of time (hours)? They are exchangeable only if all planes fly at exactly the same speed. Also it would help to make clear whether this is for the actual distance traveled (instead of planned route or great circle distance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.44.188 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The aircraft themselves are categorised Long, Short Medium haul so why not match the flights? Googling around I found that flight length and Long, Medium Short haul usually referred to distance, only sometimes to time an when referring to time was from the perspective of the passenger or travel agent marketing, not the profession of aviation. I propose:

The flight length is the distance between the origin and the destination of a flight, usually expressed in nautical miles or kilometres. There are four categories for flight distance: short-haul, medium-haul, long-haul and ultra long-haul. Flight time is the time that the aircraft is airborne and is not usually categorised.
E x nihil ^(talk) 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of medium/long/ultra-long haul flight.

The article list the break point at around 3/6/12 hours but i feel that should be more like 4/8/16 hours....? C933103 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no agreed categorisation of flight times but there is for flight distance, see section above. E x nihil ^(talk) 04:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate sentences / seperate refs

@Marc Lacoste: Rewording the sentence so that both airlines are mentioned at the beginning with both references at the end is not any less verifiable than having them separate. Plus, it makes the sentence more readable than the current form, which places unnecessary priority on American Airlines and is awkward English. MarkH21 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have different definitions; feel free to swap the order, or to rewrote for better english, but please keep precision and direct verifiabilty, thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realized that neither source actually verifies the given statements... I'll rewrite it upon finding a legitimate source. MarkH21 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to miles

@Marc Lacoste: If the North American definitions are given in miles and then converted to kilometers and nautical miles, then we should convert the kilometer definitions to miles and nautical miles as well for consistency. MarkH21 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion are heavy enough when there are two units, and even worse with three, so I try to limit it when possible, but for US airlines the source was in land miles, it may be better kept. -- Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on MOS:CONVERSIONS, it seems that a conversion to miles should still be given. Plus, they’re given for most aviation-related articles. MarkH21 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, be WP:BOLD if it's important to you: I don't think triple converts are pleasant, but it does not remove any material either. cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree that they're not pleasant aesthetically, but I do still think they belong. Cheers! MarkH21 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merging of Flight duration into Flight length article

Firstly thanks to @Marc Lacoste: Marc Lacoste for his great contributions to the Aviation wiki articles as always and proposing this merge to be discussed.
I personally believe the topics, while very closely related, but are critically different & independent and should not be merged
(but disambiguation section on both articles should point the user in the right direction).

Flight Length

The topic of "Flight Length" article is (rightly) focused on distance (how far away is this flight going) and equipment rating (big planes for long distances, small planes for short distances)

Flight Length is an important and distinct topic in aviation: flights'/routes' lengths in miles or kilometres is how CASM/K and RASM/K is calculated. The distance for a flight/route is key and distinct (historically calculated using a barograph, now via radar altimeter or GPS tracks). Also "Flight Length" when used in planning and commercial terms can be inclusive of direct flights which muddies the water further.

Aircraft Types

Aircraft/Equipment (how big is the plane) for different types of length of flights is also a pertinent and important topic - colloquial titles of "long haul" are correctly pointed out in the article as independent by operator/local authorities, however it stops short of referring to the international standard of ARCs (eg: Code E&F craft usually used on longer distance flights, Code C usually seen on shorter distance flights (but this too is now changing as we move from traditional Spoke-and-Hub models to point-to-point narrowbody operations

Further more, even historically, while equipment IS usually closely related to either the distance (14,000km) or the duration of a flight (13 hours needed). But it is also not always the case: hello 747-400D, or a variety of high volume routes using 'long-range aircraft built for spoke & hub in the name of operational demands (eg density: 777's on HND-CTS, or onward routings (also 5th freedoms) : EK's CHC-SYD / slot/gate space constraints (relatively short flights out of LHR)].

Flight Duration

Flight Duration on the other hand is "how long is it going to take to operate this leg/route" and is used for a variety of timing related activities (Flight scheduling (eg: connecting flights, slot bookings), fuel requirement planning, Crew schedules). And it has more formal definitions accordingly as a more exact topic. While again, there are strong couplings with the duration of a flight tends to correlate with the length and ergo the equipment used, its not always the case, and also especially the three remain distinct.

My proposal is to not merge these two distinct articles & topics that Marc Lacoste and so many people have contributed to (full disclosure - if you look at the creation history of "flight duration" - I created the article.)
I would further suggest considering that the three topics have merit enough for individual articles as equipment type, flight length, and flight duration are all individual topics that are unique and standalone (but highly inter-related).

Cheers again to Marc Lacoste for bringing up the topic, hopefully all can chip in for a meaningful conversation on the proposal! My greatest respect for all fellow Wiki contributors! (cross-posted to both talk pages for best visibility/discussion)

DigitalExpat (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. thanks for your reply, but it's a bit long. I think everyone understands the difference between a flight distance and a flight duration. But I'm not sure the concepts should have separate articles in an encyclopedia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marc, always appreciate your work here...Apologies for the length of the reply, just wanted to support/explain out what I see as the differences for anyone who may not have been aware of what I perceive to be the delineations :) I think you're already very familiar :). I think upon further reflection, there's perhaps an even better consolidation possible here. Here's a few thoughts/assertions:

"Flight Duration" has a technical definition (thus the article's classification under "Aviation Terminology" where the "Flight Length" article is not/cannot be.
The opening sentence for "Flight Length" and definition is without a citation and I can't find any suitable citation for this, is this even defined as such?
Actually the Flight Length article needs a lot of citations needed flags I think as I can't find the backing for several of the assertions. I tried to find them to add them, but I can't :(
I still think that that 3 topics are distinct (and important to note that they are for an encyclopedia). But I would suggest that "Flight Length" actually doesn't exist, it's a very common informal term that is usually used to refer to either Flight Duration (chocks to chocks time) or Flight Distance (Great Circle city-pairing distances), officially used for Aviation calculations.
1. (Pointing out that two are definitely not the same (example: QR's flights from DOH-KRT in 2019 had 3 1/2 hours added to its duration compared to its duration in 2021, even with the same great circle flight distance, but due to Flyover Permissions (same reason AA is struggling with its DEL-JFK flight making it nonstop right now since they lack Russian flyover permission)
Also Flight length as it stands now could refer to scheduled/timetabled flight time for a route, but also could refer to individual flight time - for example how AI 173/174's actual flight distance/duration can vary against its scheduled flight time & Great Circle distancing (a great debate previously on Wikipedia, but the concensus seems to be an encyclopedia should refrain from attempting to keep up with individual instances of a flight, rather focus on more easily verifiable/less volatile route city-pair Great Circle distances)
The other topic regarding Airlines/Equipment should actually be correctly titled something closer to "Commercial Airliner Range" or similar. There is no such thing as a "long-haul aircraft". A route has formal definitions of "long-haul" or "short-haul" based on duration, not so for an aircraft, as per my earlier points, I can use a widebody on a short distance route, or a narrow body on a long distance route. Even the stated carriers' definitions are subject to change, those are just the aircraft they choose to use on their routes, there's nothing stopping them from using a long range capable craft on a short haul route. Both Boeing and Airbus actually refer to their aircraft as "long range"/or "short range", not "long haul". (777-200LR, 350XWB-ULR/321XLR)

Ultimately I'd suggest that isn't the job of a good encyclopedia to clarify and educate people that the 3 things are distinct? :) Or to flip my argument around (always good to put myself in the other person's shoes to better understand their point! - What's the value we look to achieve by merging these topics? My view is merging adds to the murkiness instead of removing it :) DigitalExpat (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:wall of texts. As we can't reach a consensus with only 2 people, I'll ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first look, these appear to be case of a bunch of definitions. Wouldn't putting them all in a glossary simplify life? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We dont have an overview article on Commercial Airline Routes/Flights so perhaps all this could be merged into one article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:GraemeLeggett and User:MilborneOne, both these articles are little more than definitions of terms and fall under WP:NOTDICTIONARY. They both need merging into some other article on commercial flight considerations, perhaps airline. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge as stated; these are closely related topic best discussed together for context and short text. To merge to airline would be to merge to a topic that is too broad. Klbrain (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge, as I've found that one way to differentiate closely-related topics is to have them both in the same article, so the differences are easy to highlight. Joyous! | Talk 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distance-based definitions

in its edit summary, @DigitalExpat:

@Marc_Lacoste - transformed information into direct cited quotes as you requested in your edit. (n.b. - this sentence that we are editing was the one you added 4 years ago in change ID # 877382684 without any citations :) ). I've checked out the book, fyi Wragg goes out of the way in his book to explicitly differentiate between NMI & MI, he explicitly uses Standard miles (I don't know why, I agree nmi are superior/standard for aviators, I suspect KM/MI prevails for Pax Ops & Comms? Cheers!

I didn't request a quote to be explicitly copy-pasted in the article body, but in the ref. I changed it for this.
I didn't add any refs in #877382684 because I was adding it to the WP:lead section, not in the article body: it was a summary of numbers cited below: eurocontrol, AA, UA; and no refs are needed in the intro. Another editor filled in the gap with this dictionary definition. But it was incorrect as you explained. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]