Talk:Private pilot licence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Private Pilot License)

John Edward "Ed" Long[edit]

For what it's worth, Guinness credited 83-yr-old John Edward "Ed" Long with being the highest-time pilot ever a few yrs ago, with 64000hr in his logbook--@ the time... Trekphiler 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he merits an encyclopedia article, it in turn could be referenced in Aviator. Most likely he has, or had, a commercial certificate, not private. There's no matching "Long" in Alabama in the current database. David Brooks

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Private Pilot LicencePrivate pilot licence

As it says, they're obtainable and usable "anywhere in the world", that is, issued by any number of authorities. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Generic term, should be decapitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Private pilot licence. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merged. MorningThoughts (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Private pilot into this article. There is virtually nothing that can be said about a private pilot beyond that they hold a private pilot license. Most of the content on Private pilot is about the license and qualification process. Jimblackler (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger reverted[edit]

I have reverted the merger of text into this article, as it was not done right. "Merging" one article into another is not accomplished by just taking the whole contents of one article and dumping it into this one. That created a mess and essentially wrecked this article. Only the relevant, properly referenced and non-duplicate parts should be added to this article, which is almost none of it. If you aren't going to merge it properly then best to leave this article as it is and keep the other article title location as a redirect here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No point to merge it at all as they are clearly different articles and subject matters.RJS001 (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]