Jump to content

Talk:List of firsts in aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gustave whitehead

[edit]
Ithas been acknowledged by aviation magazine Jane's that whitehead flew

http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/jane-s-foreword-march-8-2013/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.183.206 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Bland

[edit]

the first woman to design build and fly a plane should be included https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lilian_Bland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.183.206 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Different format?

[edit]

Isn't there a more interesting format for this list? As it is, it is just an endless thud of firsts, with dates and piping tucked back into the text...very unlistish, and not very reader-friendly. Chronological order is there, but not easily evident nor is it easily comprehensible.

I would do this, but I fear I have a tin eye for graphics comparable to such folks' tin ear for music. On the other hand, if it truly offends even my tin eye, this article obviously needs help.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the format is rather boring. Besides I added a glider pilot in 1811 but I am uncertain on the serial. Frame dragging (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santos Dumont records

[edit]

The recently deleted text about Santos is accurate and should be restored. The editor who deleted it said the FAI did not exist before 1905, but these flights took place in 1906 and were under official observation. His flights are indeed considered the first "official" ones to be made in Europe. I will wait for comment before making any change. DonFB (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the "1905" not because Santos-Dumont only made his flights in 1906, but because the Wrights made theirs in 1903 and the next few years. It's a bit useless to note that a new French organisation recognised a "record" which was actually some years later than the true records, as they acknowledged later on, when they did become a neutral, international, well-recognised organisation. The 1906 "official" record was presented in the article as if it was, at the time, some universally recognised organisation, which it wasn't by far. I don't have a problem including his flights as the first made in Europe though (I hadn't thought of that angle) , but that wasn't what the text said. Fram (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point that people at the time believed SD had made the "first" flights anywhere. I also understand the French bias in favor of themselves and SD at the time. However, those issues don't change the fact that SD's 1906 flights were the first to be "officially" observed and thus were the first "official" flights in Europe. I am not aware of any source which has impugned the fairness of the official observations, even though they took place in a highly patriotic atmosphere. So we have two things: 1) the SD flights were the first to be "officially" observed anywhere (but not the first which actually happened), and 2) his flights were the first "official" flights in Europe. I'll go back to the article to make changes which express these facts. DonFB (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to text as it previously existed. The mention of "in Europe" is not actually required or needed, since the "official" observations make no mention of that. The article text remains accurate: first "officially" observed flight (anywhere) of at least 25 meters; and first "official" "world record". The qualifier of "official" is why this text is accurate, even though the "official" records themselves take no account of events which happened earlier. DonFB (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an official record later is recognised (by the same organisation) to have been in error, then it is struck from the lists (e.g. in sporting, when someone has cheated in some way). In this case, Santos-Dumont hadn't cheated, but the FAI was unaware of / ignoring the efforts of the Wright brothers. They later acknowledged that they had preceded the Santos-Dumont flight, e.g. in texts like this: "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight." And apparently the October 23 flight, which earned him the Archdeacon prize, wasn't registered by the FAI, and so shouldn't be indicated as "official" anyway[1]. Fram (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that modification, and I'm glad to see the entries restored rather than deleted. However, I stand by my belief that FAI does not formally or "officially" recognize in its lists any flight before the FAI and its predecessors came into existence. I am not aware that the FAI has recognized an "error" regarding SD, or "struck" any SD record from its lists. My point is that the 25 meter flight was the first to be "officially" observed, which is still true, not that FAI still believes it was the first actual flight. That article on the FAI website about the WB first flight is not an "official" policy statement from FAI. It is merely somebody's "contribution" to the FAI website (and contains its own inaccuracies). The subject nagged at me for quite a while, and I wrote to the FAI and they replied to me: "The flight of the Wright Brothers has been considered a historical event but never has been given an official 'grade' by the FAI." Of course, I would not cite a private email as a reference in an article, but that bit of correspondence seems to speak for itself. DonFB (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather unclear/ I didn't mean that they have struck any achievement of Santos-Dumont from their lists, I meant that they have acknowledged that "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight" was made by the Wrights, which means that "First flight certified and registered" by the FAI should not be read as "the FAI has certified that this, and not the Wright Brothers one, was the first flight ever", but as "this was chronologically the first successful flight where FAI officials were present". Fram (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jimmy doolittle

[edit]

aviation first take and landing on instruments 1929 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Flights

[edit]

There are three solar planes braking records, namely the Zephyr, Helios and the Solar Impulse. They aren't mentioned. The Zephyr has got the record of the longest recorded unmanned flight (http://www.news-about-space.org/space-exploration-news/cluster7644942/) and the Solar impulse the record for the longest manned flight I think (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/solarpower/7878526/Solar-Impulse-completes-record-breaking-flight.html). The Helios (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Helios_Prototype) has set the altitude record for propellor powered aircraft. Seems really notable. Especially because these developments follow quite close to each other in time.

Amelia Earhart

[edit]

Unless I'm blind, I can't see any mention of Amelia Earhart's records? 125.254.30.66 (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pearse

[edit]

I think this entry should be considered for removal. New evidence has surfaced in the form of an interview he gave to his local newspaper in 1909 in which he states that he did not build a machine until 1904, after the Wright Brothers http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/features/6796486/Pearse-flew-long-after-Wrights I have updated the entry on Richard Pearse to reflect this, but I imagine that since Richard Pearse was known to shy publicity he may have been lying in the interview. Brain696 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other items to might add

[edit]

Some first to (as well as first female) that could be added:

  • First manned indoor flight (in San Francisco, 1904)
  • First human-controlled jet-pack flights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conphucius (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First to fly pass the Kármán line.
  • First suborbital flight.
  • First orbital flight.
  • First stratospheric jump.
  • First free fall to break the sound barrier.
  • First flight beyond Earth's low orbit (LEO).
  • First flight to orbit a non-Earth object.
  • First flight to land on a non-Earth object.
  • First supersonic dogfight.
  • First to fly off a submarine (WWII Japanese subs).
  • First to eject from an aircraft.
  • First skyhook or Fulton surface-to-air recovery used.
  • First craft/plane to be launched off another plane.
  • First laser fired from a plane.
  • First plane shot down by a laser (not sure if it happenned, yet).
  • First plane shot down by a missile/rocket.
  • First plane to shoot down a satellite.
  • First plane to land in Antarctica.

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section for ultralights?

  • First paragliding flight, Jean-Claude Bétemps, 1978.
  • First cluster balloon flight, Larry Walters, 1982.
  • First DIY aircraft.

Opinions? peterburk (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Langley in 1896 and the Pittsburg, Texas, Ezekiel Machine both need to be included. First Single-Stage-to-Orbit flight, and first Hypersonic Circumnavigation of the globe need to be categories, with the caveat that if either have already occurred, they were achieved with hardware that remains classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.54.115 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Berblinger

[edit]

Took some time to render the entry more clear, the original text was written very poorly.67.175.85.9 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of firsts in aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any references for "First aircraft shot down by ground fire" ?

[edit]

Would love to share this info on Serbian Wikipedia. We have an article about airplane shot down on Sep 30, 1915 here and we deleted a note that it was the first time in history, since it could not be confirmed. Miodrag1963 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of firsts in aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminating about Discrimination

[edit]

I note GraemeLeggett views on inclusion of a new entry in the list of firsts in aviation article. Once the page is opened up to entries on the basis of racial discrimination alone, a huge can of worms is opened because, in order to observe NPOV, we will have to accept entries for each and every identifiable race and, to be perfectly fair about things, every other special group, e.g. people with only one thumb, or one leg or blind in one eye or holocaust survivor, etc., etc. It is highly discriminatory to single out one racial group, as has been done by the inclusion of Bessie Coleman's flying licence entry. Thus there is only one safe way to manage these lists and that is to be entirely blind and undiscriminatory. Another powerful reason for this approach is brevity. If this edit stays, then we would have to include an entry for every aviation first for every editor's racial group of interest, in effect, having to generate parallel world lists for every nation, for example, i.e. the first Swede, the first Australian, the first South African, ad almost infinitum. Obviously, we can't go there either. So it's not an idea that works on any level. The notability of Bessie Coleman's achievement is beyond question and covered in her article, as are myriad aerial feats performed by countless Caucasians on their pages which are not quite "first" enough to figure on the page, either. So I propose to that editors desist from making new entries discriminating on the basis of race. sirlanz 08:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV is showing, and others are included anyway, and if we do include the first of each nationality, what is the problem? This is not a paper encyclopedia that is limited in scope. I would say it is vastly more significant than the first shootdown with artillery (versus whatever was used in the prior shootdown), or the first to use a gun synchronizer which was preceded by someone using a fixed machine gun without one. - NiD.29 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that we are not on paper is no point at all. Every article has its scope and excess length and wandering off topic are not permitted in WP. The racially discriminated entry is completely out of step with the nature of the page which is about the progression in achievements in aviation, not about matters uniquely of American cultural concern. The justified concern of present-day Americans about the emancipation of its slaves is covered all over Wikipedia, as it ought, but this page is about aviation and must stay there. It is the height of American POV to cast aside the notion that to include Ms Coleman's achievement here may not lead to the subsequent inclusion of a raft of distracting firsts from around the globe. Is there any reason why we should not then have the first licence attainment for every racial grouping on Earth and of very nation, besides? The only defence you can have to that would be that you consider a black American's achievement more important than that of others - POV, pure and simple. It's an American story. sirlanz 02:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list, which gets to be as long as it needs to be, to be complete, and if you want to trim cruft I see plenty of other entries you can get excited about. We have the first flight across nearly every body of water and over every mountain range don't we? We have dozens upon dozens of women's firsts as well. By your logic those should be deleted as well. And how is "First shooting down of a military aircraft with ground-to-air artillery fire:" different from the previous entry? How is that important other than to the Serbian ego? As it is, hers WAS an achievement, since she had to battle racism and sexism just to get in the cockpit, never mind get aloft - the same kind you clearly are demonstrating now - as for "unwise to introduce racial discrimination to the list" - that is exactly what you have been attempting by your censorship and whitewashing of history. It wasn't an issue before you imperiously decided that her achievement had no place among those of her fellow aviators. As for the nonsense about every racial grouping, you know that is nothing more than a straw man, as the very reason she IS important, is that she represents them all, and no, it isn't about being American, it is about inclusivity, and in any case, what about Ahmet Ali Çelikten? - he isn't very American is he, and yet he gets an entry for the same basic reason. Also, good luck on finding any references for all the supposed entries you claim <<could>> exist (I mean - can you find out who the first Tibetan or Ainu aviator was? or the first Australian Aborigine?). - NiD.29 (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason her achievement was important, is that once she had done it, others could do so as well - which is just what every other entry here is. Someone did something so others could also do do it. The obstacles she overcame are the same ones overcome by every other person out there who had been told to go away because they had the wrong amount of pigment in their skin, or the wrong religion or the wrong genes. Vastly more of an achievement than someone shooting down an airplane with a weapon someone else designed and built. - NiD.29 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia is important. WP:NOTPAPER is policy. Are there any policy-based objections to inclusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I invite editors to visit Timeline of women in aviation and decide which of these hundreds of entries ought to be included in our list here and, in so doing, to provide a standard or policy by which such decision is to be made. This is merely to illustrate the problem you are introducing here. The page, prior to the new consensus you have achieved here (2 against 1 seems to be how this normally works on WP), used as its principle a focus on aviation as a technology, not as an expression of the development of human morals or societal development. Of course, it includes some pretty esoteric stuff but that falls within the established and sensible delimitation of the article. As a result of the consensus, readers will now enjoy a huge swathe of disparate information about humans breaking through prejudice and hardship to get into aviation but without achieving anything at all of note in the field (e.g. Bessie Coleman, a great flyer but no evidence of doing anything that had not been done before, i.e. no firsts for Bessie). Inclusion of important firsts by women does not run the risk of POV (national and racial discrimination) and introduces only one additional raft of records, not, say 250. I repeat that the list can balloon to ridiculous dimensions given this new consensus. No list of unwieldy dimensions is helpful - adding countless entries of little importance but meeting the newly established broad definition buries the stuff that people are visiting the page to learn: the key ground-breaking achievements in aviation. And I would suggest those interested read WP:NOTPAPER because it supports my position, not that of the other editor here who cites it. sirlanz 09:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No-one introduced any problems here but you Lanz - the entry has been here since 31 July 2012‎, and in 7 years no-one until you objected, nor was as confused as you are about her significance. This isn't about her nationality and you know that. Not one of your spam entries was a person whose personal achievement had any influence over others being able to do what they had done. Just because someone was first in Argentina or the UK, does not mean their feat was significant outside of their country's history, nor is every achievement by a woman. Bessie's achievement was significant outside her own country, in the broader context of aviation history, regardless of whether that gets past your personal prejudices. And really, the slippery slope argument is just another sad, pathetic logical fallacy. I have brought this up with the aviation project and so no, it won't simply be one person ignoring the actual arguments presented by two people. - NiD.29 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that Bessie Coleman deserves her entry. It is a tacit acknowledgement of the habitual white racism that existed at the time and I do not see that acknowledgement as being racist. One could argue that it was a social first rather than a true aeronautical first, in which case one can say that it was a sufficiently historical social first in aviation to be worthy of inclusion. To take another example discussed, the first aircraft to be shot down by ground fire is surely deserving of inclusion. If that honour belongs to Serbia (and I have no idea which side the plane was on), then good luck to 'em getting a mention. But these examples should in no way set a precedent for the first Paflagonian to fly or the first woman to light a cigarette in the air, so I fully endorse NiD.29's reversion of those additions. I am less sure about some of the pioneer achievements, such as the first Frenchman to fly, as they are notable milestones in history despite not being absolute firsts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the first person of a race to hold a pilot license in a country is not usually notable enough to be included in this list, the fact that racism in the US would have made it extremely hard for Bessie Coleman to receive a license makes the event notable. - ZLEA T\C 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After opening the Bessie Coleman article for the first time and reading in the opening line that "she was the first woman of African-American descent, and the first of Native American descent, to hold a pilot license", then yes, I would expect to find her mentioned in an article titled List of firsts in aviation. I would not expect such list to be limited strictly to technological achievements. If some other editor wants to add some other non-trivial, ethnic/social first in aviation that is supported by reliable sources then so be it. I doubt there will be a rush to do so anyway, so it seems a bit early to worry about the article ballooning out of control. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is 72,000 bytes so far, compared to 117,000 for the list of fighter aircraft - I suspect it has room for expansion. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're all consumed by the imperative to acknowledge the appalling human history of racism and discrimination, ongoing little abated today, so consumed that you want it mentioned everywhere no matter what. But, more fundamentally, you are insisting on promoting your particular American POV in thinking that Bessie has more significance than suffering minorities the world over. I've added Les Waters because the general regard of his race as little more than another example of Mammalia by White Australians is a context, it seems to me, probably even more oppressive than Bessie's and his achievement all the more remarkable for it. I have spent many hours working on the List of massacres of Indigenous Australians (by Europeans) because I believe the story of immense importance (not least of which the entire eradication of a race on Tasmania, as aggressively performed (or perhaps more so) as that of the Thylacine). I have spent many other hours researching pages dealing indigenous Australians now and historically (e.g. Jack Charles (actor) and Steve Bowditch). So it must be understood that I am as passionate (and deliver on it) about race matters as anyone. You simply fail to see that in our encyclopaedia we produce pages of a certain scope. This page is a technological one, not sociological. I have begun to demonstrate the problem of opening up the sociological angle by adding racial and national firsts in a completely NPOV manner, i.e. respecting the consensus here. This may begin to get my message across. The page is wandering completely off topic and its utility greatly undermined. sirlanz 01:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And any suggestions as to how we ensure that our readers are instructed that the pilots who made the first circumnavigation were the most shocking White Supremacists who literally described various foreign races (well, virtually anyone not White Caucasian, or American better still) as "Simians" and "apes"? Perhaps we should add that descriptor before their names because they most surely were and that fact (so far undisclosed on the page) underlines the opportunity they enjoyed to be part of the history-making team and was a key to their acquisition of a stature recognised worldwide. If this is to be a social comment page, why should they get away with their achievement not being qualified in that way? sirlanz 01:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any editors who would like to express support for NiD.29's deletion of the entry "* First Australian aboriginal pilot: Len Waters, 1944" on the basis that it is an "absurdity"? sirlanz 02:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Can anyone satisfactorily explain the reversion on the basis of "absurdity" of an edit which, in accordance with source, adds the second woman who died in the same incident in which the first female fatalities were recorded? I'm seeking consensus here, given these edits were performed by a prime-mover in the recent consensus reached about the scope of the article. sirlanz 03:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC) How is it that noting the first woman to fly in Nigeria is "absurd" while noting the first African American to fly is essential? sirlanz 03:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC) How is it that noting the first Australian aboriginal woman to be licensed to fly is "absurd" while noting the first African American to be so licensed is essential? sirlanz 03:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple really, because the obstacles that person faced had already been beaten by Bessie Coleman, same as every other entry you attempted to drown the list with. Their nationality does not make for a relevant accomplishment. The absurdity comment was in response to your argument over their inclusion, and you still have not provided a reason as to why they are indeed relevant. Trying to fulfill a slippery slope argument does not make it true. - NiD.29 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So - putting words in my mouth I never said. Exactly what significance does a hop across to NZ from Australia have when someone had just crossed the entire Pacific? There is some significance to each new crossing, but only as they represent greater distances, or other special challenges. Exactly what new challenge was overcome in this entry? This isn't about the length of the page, it IS however about notability, and this flight has none. At this point you are just being obtuse and disruptive. As for the racism issue, ONE entry does not make for social commentary unless you are so obsessed with whitewashing everything that you cannot abide the merest suggestion that the world is not a nice place. (newsflash - it isn't) - NiD.29 (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz: "You're all consumed by the imperative to acknowledge the appalling human history of racism and discrimination" definitely comes under the epithet "absurd". And being British, I can assure you that I do not have an "American POV". Please re-read WP:AGF. My imperative here is to build an encyclopedia and my POV is as neutral as I know how to make it. Honestly, your lengthy rant reads as so over-biased the other way that I cannot see you making sensible contributions to this discussion unless you calm down. Currently, you are doing your case more harm than good. You have to put aside the fact that Bessie Coleman was an American and instead see this list in a neutral international context. For example she appears to trump Len Waters in this particular list because she was the first to breach the wall and he was not, irrespective of nationality. In so far as that is a verifiably significant aviation first because it faced down "the appalling human history of racism and discrimination" then so be it, she might have been the first ice cream vendor to go supersonic for all I care (in the context of this particular list), if coverage in RS were adequate to verify its significance. As another example, I removed a US-biased entry here because, like Len, it was not an international "first" and had no significance outside its homeland. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made 15 new entries. 10 of them were before Bessie Coleman's record. The opportunity has been given to the reverting editor to explain the "absurdity" of the inclusion of the 15 entries and the only explanation offered is that these records were set by people inspired by Bessie's achievement. That is plainly untrue and demonstrates the lack of good faith in the editor's blanket deletion and one-word explanation. Thus, those first 10 entries will now be reinstated. As for the remaining five, another opportunity will be afforded the reverting editor separately shortly. sirlanz 10:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have said that I endorse that reversal on the grounds that on the whole they were insufficiently significant at an international level. If you reinstate them, your action will be against the spirit of WP:BRD and I will likely revert them again. May I suggest that you bring one or two examples to this discussion first, so that we can use them to clarify current consensus? I know how frustrating these things can be, but Wikipedia was not built in a day and patience is our best friend here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your view is, unlike the reverting editor, a notability one. Read what I've said about societal context. Bessie's record is remarkable in the US and has either (in almost all my 15 cases) plainly absolutely no relevance at all or, at best, on the most favourable speculation, possibly of some minor relevance. Bessie's first is purely a matter of social comment. If comment on US societal developments are valid for the article, they must be valid for every other nation and race on Earth or you're just executing blatant racist and/or jingoist POV. It is, to me, an outrage to suggest that Mr Waters' achievement can be considered for a moment anything less than Coleman's, for example. sirlanz 10:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Five new, sourced entries were made by me of firsts taking place after Bessie Coleman's achievement, all of which were deleted on the basis of "absurdity" and, expanding on that, because the achievements were basically not achievements at all because they were merely replicating something already done by Coleman and inspired by her. The five entries are (1) a Korean woman, in Korea; (2) and Indian man, in India; (3) the first Chinese-American, in the US; (4) a Venezuelan woman, in Venezuela; and (5) and Australian aborigine, in Australia. To suggest that these people did what they did because an African American woman in the United States took this brave step is running awfully close to absurdity. It seems to me that to suggest that she inspired African-American women would make eminently good sense but to expand that to worldwide inspiration to members of the middle- and upper classes (the very patrician Tata family in India, a music degree holder, a Venezuelan sponsored by her company to go learn to fly in the US) and to someone on the other side of the Earth who had not even been born is simply unsupportable. And let's be clear about this: the first by Bessie is not in the act of gaining a flying licence (hundreds (perhaps 470) of White women and certainly many thousands of White men had them by then), it is the discriminatory social context which makes the event notable. To suggest that this context can be simply exported to the entire rest of the world and say, "Oh, well, it's been done before" is the zenith of POV and is expressly to be excluded on WP. sirlanz 10:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there was so much rant in there I missed any proposals for improving this article. Nor will I be ploughing through any more such rants. If you cannot follow my advice, you can always try that offered below by Deeday-UK. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating a separate section at the bottom, titled e.g. First aviators by country and move there all the entries in question, including Bessie's? Following from my previous post, entries such as the first Czech woman licensed to fly are, strictly speaking, worthy of inclusion in an article with such a broad title as List of firsts in aviation. It's more a matter of organising the information sensibly, without drowning the major milestones of flight in a sea of lesser or non-internationally relevant achievements. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the reverting editor has added entries for "First transatlantic commercial proving flights", "First use of air-to-air rockets to down an aircraft" and "First use of air-to-ground rockets"; are we exercising a level playing field here on notability? These are more notable than the "first person to fly in Britain", for example? sirlanz 10:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? If you have a view on a proposal, state it clearly and you might be able to convince people that you're right. Don't expect me to waste my time on your rhetorical questions. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see separate articles for "List of aviation firsts in [country X]" or similar. A massive list of country-related fancruft will not help the present list article one bit, whether in or below the main list. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"First aviators by country", suggested by Deeday, sounds like a pretty good idea; it should be a separate article, rather than a section of this one. In that spirit, I suggest this article could include in its introductory sentence phrasing to the effect: "This article focuses on technical achievements and failures." A hatnote or link to see Main Article for List of first aviators by country should then be included. DonFB (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So that's three in support. Any opposed? sirlanz 00:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A separate page sounds good for List of first aviators by country, but disagree over this page being stripped of anything not technical related though. A second spin off page could include all the national level firsts that are not relevant on the world level - List of firsts in Aviation by country. The first trans-Canada relay flight for instance may be of interest to Canadians, but isn't significant globally and so doesn't belong here any more than the Tasman Sea crossing does, similarly with nearly every other country out there - there are firsts that should be documented, and there isn't really any location for that, and they would drown this list which should remain in the broader context. I still disagree with removing Bessie though as her significance was never limited to the US, or to her race or sex, but to the general human condition of striving to overcome impossible odds (a condition not necessarily shared by most of the first aviators by country). - NiD.29 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps NiD.29 could provide editors with support for the opinion Coleman's significance was "never limited to the US, or to her race or sex, but to the general human condition". That would be a starting point for meaningful, constructive discussion. Thereafter, editors can consider whether this article has a place for entries which are directed at that subject, i.e. the "general human condition" rather than progress in human achievement in aviation. sirlanz 01:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Coleman is included, this article will always be subject to debate/controversy/time wasted among editors whether some additional 'special' social first should be listed. Setting a clear demarcation that separate articles exist could go a long way to avoiding such chronic arguments. DonFB (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her name was on there for SEVEN years before ONE person decided to be offended. Hardly chronic arguments. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But now there's an objection and the argument is joined. The proposed resolution (a dedicated article) opens the way for even more inclusiveness and social justice (if I may use the term) in the historical record shown on this site. If such article is created, it would certainly appear to be the appropriate place, not only for Coleman, but for many others now absent from the encyclopedia. Considering the matter a bit more, however, I think the proposed title, "First aviators by country", does not exactly do what we want. The 'first aviator' in any given country is probably not a woman or minority group member, the people with whom this discussion is concerned. Further, I'm not sure that members of a list of firsters, or firsters by gender/ethnicity, satisfy relevant notability policies/guidelines, whether GNG, GNG/people, or BIO1E. If necessary, I'm amenable to IAR, because (verifiable) names of first aviators--both white/male and otherwise, seem encylopedically worthwhile for inclusion. DonFB (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the "first X to fly" is an aviation first and a potential candidate for this list. This is not a "List of technical firsts in aviation", this is not a "List of socially insignificant firsts in aviation", nor even (as I first suggested) a "List of internationally significant aviation firsts". It is simply a list of aviation firsts. I now realise that limiting the scope of this list, as suggested above by myself and others, would help nobody in the long run, as somebody would quickly recreate a parallel list with the wider scope and running the two alongside each other would be a horrible solution.

The only question relevant to this topic for a given candidate is, does it have sufficient encyclopedic significance to have a place in this list? For example here are some non-US-centric references for Bessie Coleman (though some may be based in the US):

Note the significance of her aviation first as a global icon for social reform, her highlighting by educational materials, and so forth. There is no question but that she has the encyclopedic significance to include here.

Wikipedia already has clear policies and guidelines, on which each candidate entry here should be judged according to its merits. For example if Len Waters as the first Australian Aboriginal pilot can be similarly supported as encyclopedically significant then yes I would reverse my current judgement and accept that he does have a place here, otherwise not.

Those policies and guidelines allow some latitude for local consensus. An example of that might be if we agree here that any aviation "first" automatically qualifies if it is an important contributor to the notability of an existing topic. No relevant article would mean no significance here. That would be easy to check and would also ensure Len his place here. It might also help limit some of the "first Paflagonian triplane to lose a bomb while looping the loop in a cloud" type entries that have begun to multiply. I would have no objection to that if consensus were sought for it.

If the list still grows unmanageably, splitting it into sub-lists is the usual solution. These might be along the lines of the existing section breaks or, if that looks insufficient, then we could break out separate national lists and perhaps even a "List of international aviation firsts" or similar, leaving the present title as a contents page for the sub-lists.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point. Len Waters article describes him as first Australian aboriginal pilot in RAAF. He might be first person of aboriginal descent to be a pilot full stop but that's not currently there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Date splits

[edit]

The dates for each section are arbitrary, with two overlapping for 1911 and 1918, while there are entries potentially in the incorrect sections - I am thinking it should be broken down to pre-1903 (pre-Wright), 1903-1916 (see below) and 1917-1961 (first man in space) and post 1962 since they correspond to broadly recognized aviation eras/milestones that are neither US-centric nor Euro-centric. 1916 makes a better split than 1911 or 1918 as it marks the end of the road for wing warping, and hence the last of the first generation of aircraft, and it also saw a shift in how aircraft were used - and viewed. They ceased to be eccentric and fragile toys for the rich and became vehicles useful for everything from air combat to transport. Air combat became organized for the first time in 1916 with both the French and the Germans creating the first dedicated units based on specific roles (starting with fighters). Air combat began to shift from a one-on-one match in which the airplane played a minor role in the winner's success, to a large melee in which speed became essential. Handling and control and having a surplus of power became vastly more important - it was no longer sufficient that an aircraft could fly, it had to meet certain speed and handling requirements. The R.A.F. B.E.2, Morane-Saulnier monoplanes, Farman MF.11 and Fokker E.III and other pioneers were driven from the sky by aircraft that differ little from ones being built today (albeit by homebuilders, and with better lateral control). The days of 50 and 80 hp aircraft were ending, and the days of the 200hp and up were beginning. 1914 also represents a possible break point, as a pinnacle for records was reached that weren't broken again until after the war but progress was instead made on reliability, carrying capacity and strength and utility, so while speeds did not increase dramatically until after the war, Engines went from reliably producing 80hp - to over 400hp, and loads went from one pilot and either a passenger or a small bomb load (but not both), to thousands of pounds. Much of that jump began in 1916, not least with the appearance of the first operational R-planes. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The date splits were originally done by me as the page then had a great concentration of military-related firsts beginning partway through 1911 and more or less up to the end of the First World War. Any split will be difficult and more so now that the scope has been opened up by consensus. Certainly, the splits now don't carry any particular significance. Good luck finding any useful natural points. All I would say is we need to keep some in order to make the page more easily digestible. sirlanz 02:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some fairly large gaps in the timeline - 1924 to 1927, 1933 to 1939 and from 1949 to 1973. The 1924 to 1927 one is well known but there are probably more record flights, such as the 1933 Balboa mass transatlantic formations to go in there, and the 1949 to 1973 is probably missing entries related to supersonic flight, supercruise, nuclear powered aircraft and other cold-war monstrosities. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First circumnavigation by helicopter

[edit]

I hope you are doing well. I reviewed the List of firsts in aviation page on Wikipedia and noticed that “First circumnavigation by helicopter” is incorrectly attributed to Dick Smith. As noted in the Smithsonian website and the Spirit of Texas Wikipedia page, the feat should actually be attributed to Ross Perot, Jr. and Jay Coburn in 1982. The Wikipedia article notes that Dick Smith attempted to be the first to complete the round-the-world trip but completed his solo flight a year later in July 1983. The Spirit of Texas flight was highly documented and is referenced in outlets such as AIN Online and Heavy.

Please let me know if you can update the listing to reflect the below:

First circumnavigation by helicopter: Ross Perot, Jr. and Jay Coburn, Bell 206L-1 LongRanger II,1982.

— Best, Serhalj (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word "solo" to the Smith entry and wrote a new referenced entry for the Perot-Coburn trip. DonFB (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First aerial refuelling

[edit]

How exactly are we defining aerial refuelling because I think the first aerial refuelling happened in 1921 not 1923 according to this website[1] and this[2] Maxime12346 (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/11/first-aerial-refueling/
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/CenturyAgoToday/status/1459113745603510283

First (successful) jump from a balloon with a parachute

[edit]

What's the distinction between these two "firsts":

  • First jump from a balloon with a parachute: Jean-Pierre Blanchard used a parachute in 1793 to escape his hot air balloon when it ruptured.[citation needed]
  • First successful jump from a balloon with a parachute: Andre Jacques Garnerin in Paris in 1797.

Blanchard's article indicates that he survived his jump. Does that not make it "successful"? DH85868993 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_firsts_in_aviation&oldid=1235238725"