The question above, was indeed about aviation.

It asked about the general capabilities of a specific category of aircraft, and I feel that there are enough people around that could know the answer. (Without violating OPSEC!)

As many users have said, you'd have to be pretty far away from the topic of aviation to be off topic on this site.

If our mission is to build a large database of high quality questions and answers related to aviation, would this not have a place as a part of that?

I think some of you may argue that it is too specific, but I don't really see how that is the case.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it's too specific, but my guess as to close votes is that it's less about aviation and more about a weapons system. It's a bit like asking a question about airliner flight control systems on Travel.SE. $\endgroup$ – egid Oct 26 '14 at 18:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I get where you are coming from, I really do, but I don't think that is the case with this question. Perhaps another way to look at it is, "If not here, where?" $\endgroup$ – Bassinator Oct 26 '14 at 21:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Again, I didn't vote and I'm not sure I have an opinion, but your argument doesn't win me over. My counter-argument is "that sounds like a good candidate for a proposal at Area 51". $\endgroup$ – egid Oct 26 '14 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ @egid - Where do we draw the line, however? Military SE is a good idea, or incorporating the aviation side of it here if not, but the fact is that we're applying these rules VERY inconsistently: see my answer to this question for a few examples $\endgroup$ – Jon Story Jan 22 '15 at 14:36

To answer without answering: it's because we don't have a clear, unambiguous definition of whether military/weapons systems questions belong here. To speculate: the majority of users of the site seem to be interested primarily in Commercial or General Aviation.

On and off-topic is far too losely defined on Aviation, leading to questions like this. If there was a Military.SE this would fit perfectly there, but until then the question to ask is "How aviation-related is this question": I can't see it, as it's been removed, buty guess from the title is that it's slightly too specific to the weapons system.

Considering that we have numerous other aircraft-specific questions, I'm not sure where we draw the line, but as an example the following Cessna 172 question is regarding fuel, which is aircraft specific in process but generally aviation related.

Then we start to get into the trickier ones - this one is VERY military and only linked to aviation in as much as "Planes are the target", which hasn't been closed

Or this one which is purely about weapons again, albeit air-launched ones, and hasn't been closed

Or even this, which is about counter-weapons systems on a commercial airliner... is this really so different from a question about weapons on a military aircraft? Yet again, this hasn't been closed

Very simply, we aren't applying these rules consistently, because we aren't quite sure what the rule is. We need a consensus on the rules, to clearly define the rules, and then to apply/enforce them correctly.

The solution: define this site as being non-military aviation, or as purely involving aviation, navigation, avionics, ATC etc.... or define it as incorporating military aspects as long as they are closely related to aviation (air-launched or anti-aircraft weapons, for exampel)

  • $\begingroup$ I think the latter fits better... $\endgroup$ – Bassinator Jan 22 '15 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ignoring an entire driving force of aviation (military) is a clear mistake. $\endgroup$ – Bassinator Jan 22 '15 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My personal opinion is that we should include military aviation as long as it remains clearly aviation related, but the real task is to work it out one way or another $\endgroup$ – Jon Story Jan 22 '15 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ I think we should apply a fairly liberal policy. As long as it is tied to aviation, we should allow it, because there can be no clear rule that draws a line somewhere in between without being arbitrary... And the only other serious option is not allowing any military related questions, which is obviously silly IMO. $\endgroup$ – Bassinator Jan 22 '15 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ To elaborate further, questions even as specific as this one, (Do predator/reaper drones have to point the nose at a target to fire a missile) should be allowed, questions that cannot be tied back to aviation in a clear way should not. In a single sentence, if you can easily see how it is about planes, allow it. Any other boundary would be arbitrary and subject to our daily whims. $\endgroup$ – Bassinator Jan 22 '15 at 22:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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