8
$\begingroup$

For this question (Intl. Flights - Which are the Flight Level rules differences?), it appears to be asking for resources that have collated information of various altitudes for direction of flight in different countires, which are plentiful. Should these types of questions be allowed on Aviation.SE?

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

I don't think questions asking for sources of information are bad as long as the type of information being sought is fairly specific, and there are definitive sources of that information which can be given as answers.

The problem with that question is that it's worded poorly. He's heard there may be differences in cruising altitude rules, and I think what he really wants to know are any examples of this being true, how flight planning works when crossing these types of "rule" boundaries, and how a pilot would go about finding this out. But all that really comes across is the last part. We could probably try editing the question to make it better.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I would say probably not.

One of the main goals of the SE network is to become a relatively time independent repository of useful questions with answers.

Asking for resources can often turn into a "let's go shopping" question (where there is no one correct answer)

Also, resource questions often elicit link-only answers (which, even though they answer the original user's question, tend to become useless with time).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, they can, but it's also a consideration of what they tend to do on this site, through this community. If they generally stay well contained and are reasonably scoped, then you don't really have a problem. New sites inherit our cumulative knowledge that we've gathered during the course of building over a hundred sites - but each individual community needs to tweak that knowledge just a bit in order to fit their needs and topic. $\endgroup$ – Tim Post Dec 18 '13 at 5:55
0
$\begingroup$

In my opinion, questions along the lines of "where do I find detailed information about X?" or "where is this term/rule/procedure defined?" are sometimes useful because there are scenarios where the answer is really the information source, not the information itself:

  • It's not always obvious if something 'well-known' is part of the FARs and therefore legally required; a recommended (but not legally required) procedure from the AIM; or simply a best practice from an instructor. (Replace FAR and AIM with your local equivalents, of course.)
  • A US pilot may not be familiar with European information sources and vice versa, so someone planning his first international flight may genuinely need pointers to information rather than the information itself.

On the other hand, people who ask "where do I find X?" are presumably really interested in knowing what X actually is, so in most cases it would be better to just ask "what is X?" directly and let us answer it in an appropriate way. This is something to handle via comments on the question, I would say.

One other point we need to watch out for is providing answers that are too specific in an effort to avoid referring to other sources. Regulations change over time and NOTAMs can pop up any time, so we should be aware that in many cases - especially for flight operations - the only safe, legal and reasonable reference is the official sources. But this is something that will probably become clearer over time as we see what sort of questions are asked, and obviously no one should consider this site as a valid flight planning reference.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

One benefit to having questions and answers like this is that it will bring people to the site via search engine results. Overall I think lots of reference information on the site would be a valuable resource, and if it helps increase the visibility of the site to people searching for Aviation related information, all the better.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Yes, these should be allowed because members will save time for the community with their curation efforts.

Just "Googling" it often sends you into a rabbit hole for hours of having to vet the source, scan the articles to make sure that they are actually relevant, etc.

This reduces time lost on articles made by SEO experts that are just driving traffic to their clients site.

However, the people listing articles should list why they liked those resources. So not just link only questions. But do not downvote, instead suggest edits to those answers.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ While Bret Copeland has made a good justification for well worded resource requests, the justification that you have provided is not exactly a good one for this site. Stack Exchange is not purely a time saving device to bypass doing your own research; it is intended to be a site for asking clearly defined questions that have clearly defined answers. Some resource requests will result in vague lists that could go on indefinitely or no clear best answer(s). These types of questions are not good for the Stack Exchange model. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Dec 18 '13 at 20:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, the downvote is a critical part of the Stack Exchange model, and is not meant as an offense. Often it is best to leave an explanation for a downvote, but none is required. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Dec 18 '13 at 20:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .