27

I believe the original question, that is, "Is there anything visible in the airplane's configuration that would indicate if this is arrival or departure?" is a completely legitimate question. The one clear, non-subjective answer would be "No, there is not. Takeoff and Landing configurations are so similar that it is impossible to tell from a still photo." ...


21

Please Skip I have said it before, there is an option to skip. In the review queue the reviewer is presented with leave open, close, and skip. I use skip a lot when I don't know about the subject, so this answer is merely a reminder to others that it is okay to skip. I also find comments that explain the down-vote/vote-to-close because the asker didn't ...


19

I want to remind everyone that we aren't actually required to be strict about the rules if, as a community, we don't want to be. There are many communities on SE that are very lax with the rules, simply because it's what fits their format the best. Personally, over the three yeas I've been here, I've noticed that every now and again this community likes ...


13

You've been on StackExchange a long time now and have had a lot of feedback about your questions and answers on many SE sites, so you really should know by now why they're not very good questions. For the first question: a downvote can mean "this question doesn't show any research effort" and as the answer says, most of it can be easily found in Wikipedia. ...


13

I don't think we need a specific close reason simply because a question is asked in the context of an accident that made the news - Like Federico mentioned usually those can be edited to be more generic, citing one or more examples that may include a current event. Moderators also have the ability to add a post notice (the one I added to this question for ...


12

Wow... Way to jump to conclusions. I did research. I just happened to not know the optimal search terms apparently. I found a list on Wikipedia, but it was not limited to single occupant flights, for example. Even using your suggested search term doesn't bring me to an authoratative, and obviously up-to-date answer. Maybe its obvious to you if you already ...


11

No, we shouldn't just immediately close them for the very simple reason that asking a question on SE is research. Just telling someone to Google or even linking to another site's information is far from ideal: Google results may change over time, making responses like "just Google 'foo bar frob' and check the first couple of hits" potentially unhelpful and/...


9

I agree that asking for data would be an improvement and it's probably a good general way to improve 'fuzzy' questions and make them more focused and answerable. In this case, asking for data or research on how/if failures are correlated with maintenance frequency might get a better response. Whether you want to edit the existing question or open a new one ...


9

I'm generally a little on the users-over-rules side, so it'll be hard for me to give an unbiased answer, but I'll present some research I did. Data collection I put together a Data Explorer query to look for questions that were closed then reopened, filter only ones reopened under suspicious circumstances like reopens without edits, and print the list of ...


8

Often these questions will either be disguising a valid question which will help people understand the circumstances of the flight and others similar scenarios (kinda like the XY problem on SO) or be a dupe of such an existing question. I propose editing them to focus on that underlying question, the asker will find out the information he needs and leave a ...


8

We should answer them: StackExchange is trying to be a better information source than other sites, we aren't trying to answer only questions that have never been asked before, and we're not trying to be a link service that just points people to Wikipedia. Even if there's another information source out there, and even if it's very popular (e.g. Wikipedia) is ...


6

On these type of questions the correct close reason is not "off topic" but "calls for opinion." I don't see a specific need for a special close reason. People just need to select the right one.


6

I don't see a problem here. Yes, we talk about accidents, but as mentioned in help, after an investigation is completed. Why? Because then it eliminates speculations. Unless one of the members of this community is working on an active investigation with NSTB or similar boards, all we can do is speculation before the investigation concludes. Sometimes (hint)...


5

Notwithstanding ymb1 very well put response I just wanted to add that even though I personally do not know the answer to that question it just feels very broad. It does not specify what the actual problem trying to be solved is, which is a core tenet of questions in a QA format. If you ask a vague question, you’ll get a vague answer. But if you give us ...


5

No, it's not a remotely valid reason to close the question. It's not even clear to me that there's anything wrong in the situation you describe but, if there is, it can be fixed by editing so there's no reason to close.


5

Would it be reasonable to have a Wiki question with a title very similar to this meta question that contains a list of responses to the FAQ? Why don't planes have parachutes. Why isn't FDR/CVR data streamed live. etc. Then we could close the questions as [Duplicate] and point them to the Wiki FAQ. If someone comes up with a good, well asked question, it ...


5

If you think the question contradicts itself, the closest reason for closing would seem to be "needs details or clarity."


4

Imagine this question: Although it has not been determined why Sullenberger was able to land the plane in the Hudson, the general assumption by the media is that it was because of his experience and training. Why don't aircraft have floatation devices in their bellies? The first paragraph is true, but doesn't at all change or constrain the answers that you'...


4

There's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions as such, e.g. "Will my piston engine keep running if I have total electrical failure?" is a hypothetical question but it's clear and has a definite, useful answer. The hypothetical questions that cause more problems are ones like this. It's very broad, makes a lot of assumptions and is really a 'movie plot' ...


4

Such a close reason might be a nice feature to have, but remember that many times the questions can be edited and made independent from the current events, see for example how this sequence of edits saved this question: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/posts/13533/revisions. So, in conclusion my opinion is: yes to the close reason, but let's use it only ...


4

In my opinion, as the question stands, it seems to ask about military aircraft losses sustained without enemy intervention, and an attempt to correlate whether they came from a carrier or not. Although aircraft are involved, it's hardly about aviation or the operation of aircraft per se. If he's asking about the number of aircraft lost on landing and/or ...


4

Should we have a new reason for close votes which is "There is an inaccurate statement or a false premise in the question"? Most definitely not. A question by nature stems from not knowing. You can however use the vote up/down to grade the question on its level of research, clarity, and usefulness. Example: How does the engine reverse spin the fan ...


4

I agree that some can be useful questions but the majority tend to be one of: "What is the best....." - probably subjective, and not the good type of subjective. "Where can I find...." - the location often does change over time, rendering any answer useless. "Where can I get a feed of data on...." - possibly the least ...


3

This question was asked 8 months ago, and nothing has changed. It is beyond me why questions should be closed when they are not understood by the voter. @ymb1’s advise is sound.


3

My view is that this arises from the technological limitation that we cannot cache a video on Stack Exchange. The question, itself, is clear to me. If we allow a question to stand based on images only (e.g. "identify this" questions), then the same argument should apply to videos as well. Realistically there are not many places to host video content. I ...


3

In my opinion, the problem arises when poorly written is taken synonymously with unclear what you're asking. New users may not be related to aviation and they might have a basic or very trivial question, but do not exactly know how to articulate it properly. Sometimes, I do feel that there is a group of users among us who is relatively less patient and want ...


3

The close reasons are in part a matter of opinion. While there may be a general consensus, not everyone is going always agree about whether a question is not clear. The point is that if enough people find it unclear, then it needs some work. The users that tend to jump on things right away may have a different view from those that weigh in later. In your ...


3

Here is the scenario you've presented. User 1 answered a question User 2 found a possible duplicate User 1 agreed that it is a duplicate Is User 1 misusing the system? TL;DR No, they are not misusing the system. Regarding the first point, User 1 is not required to search for duplicates before answering. (Is it my responsibility to search for duplicates &...


3

Things that stand out as low quality, in my opinion Very short 1 sentence. Therefore the question lacks clarity, context and purpose. It is hastily written without much real thought. "Engine" is a very broad term. Ok it is tagged jet-engine (after a clarification/edit) but there are so many different jet engines, all able to cope differently with ...


2

If you find yourself being tempted to post only a link or direct quote from Wikipedia, or telling them go use Google, sometimes this can suggest it's not the best question. But Pondlife is right, we can do better than that. So many times I search for answers on Google, and the first result is a thread where someone is told to search the forums or Google. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible