Talk:Big sky theory

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

External Links[edit]

This article needs links to other articles.

Added multiple internal links.Joema 19:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (and examples like Gödel's incompleteness theorem), I'm going to move this page to Big sky theory soon. I'm placing this here so no-one is surprised. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

calculations[edit]

I like the inclusion of the calculations to give an idea of the probabilities of hitting a plane with anti-aircraft fire. I was trying to verify the math, but I was immediately struck by how hard it is to follow the notation: "20626 / 0.24 / 0.24". Most people would presume the slashes indicate division, but we might try something more formal here. Is there a way to make a better looking representation of the equations? This is kind of what I am referring to, but the tags/code to render that looks rather daunting. Even if the formating remains the same, there shouldn't be unitless values in the calculations since it leads to ambiguity like in 358,090 / 5 / 10 / 10. Without thinking about the math for yourself, you don't know whether the 10's are the rounds per second or the number of guns which are both set to 10. Dwr12 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Warefare[edit]

Is there any source for the space warfare section? it sounds like original research. Bad original research, as it doesent matter where to point my phasers, the Borg cube is big enough to be hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.186.1 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon mid-air collision[edit]

Should the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision be included in the "see also" section? Max Buskirk (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. This incident was the death knell of the "Big Sky" and became the impetus for the modern ATC network. Pmarshal (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the big sky theory discredited?[edit]

Pmarshal's statement above suggests that the theory was discredited following the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision. Also, I found a source^[1] which says that the big sky theory is not used in air traffic control. However, the article doesn't state whether the theory is considered to be accurate. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC) MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://apstraining.com/resource/the-big-sky-theory-luck-and-loss-of-control-in-flight/

[1] ttps://apstraining.com/resource/the-big-sky-theory-luck-and-loss-of-control-in-flight/

[1]