Talk:Snowbirds (aerobatic team)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin of the name "Snowbirds"[edit]

It's my understanding that the team's name was decided in a public vote, and that the name Snowbirds probably won because of the popularity, at the time, of the song "Snowbird," by Anne Murray. Can anyone confirm that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.85.132 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My brother flew with them, and I heard it was a contest at a local school.

This page says that the snowbirds "was presented their Squadron Colours on October 15, 1999 for 25 years of service" But 1994 was their 25th year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.115.41 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how the team got their name.

A "Name the Team" contest was held at the local base elementary school in June of 1971. The winner was a Grade 6 student by the name of Doug Farmer. Mr. Farmer was able to join the team on a media ride at the Abbotsford, BC Airshow in 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk1965 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration teams[edit]

Can we do a jet demonstration teams page? Just tracking dn the Golden Hawks was a bit of a trial... Trekphiler 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


See my reply on Talk:Golden Hawks. -User:Lommer | talk 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV?[edit]

Is it just me, or does this sentence sound a bit POV-ish when it's included in the very first paragraph:

"Unlike The United States' Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, the Snowbirds perform with nine airplanes, which give them more variations in formation and flying patterns."

Sounds like it should be followed by "neener neener." I think it should be moved into a more detail-oriented section. (Also the grammar is bad, but that's another post...) Alpha262 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison also seems gratuitous, since military teams fly with any number of aircraft from two to ten or more. But the detail that nine planes allows many different formations and formation combinations is valid, so I have reorganized the introduction with that information in a separate paragraph, lower down.
At some point a more detailed explanation of Snowbird formations and manoeuvres would be nice.
--Tedd 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I believe I wrote the passage, there was no intention to have "one-upmanship." It was merely a statement of fact. IMHO Bzuk 23:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fair play to you both. I wish more Wiki articles could be discussed in such a civilized way. Alpha262 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists[edit]

I think we have to be careful about adding more content as lists. The article may get a cleanup-laundry tag. The rule of thumb is that if an article is more than 30% lists, we should consider incorporating the info into the main body as text.--BC 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, It looks like it could stay as is for now, however. FWIW Bzuk 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed. I was referring to adding new headings that would be organized into lists rather than needing to reorganize the information that already exists. I think list form is okay for what is there now.--BC 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hay is going on? Bzuk (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bill. Beats me; I don't understand this stuff.-BC (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bot that has a quirky program. I gave up trying to reason with it and uploaded a new image. Bzuk (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]


See more about Canadian Teams[edit]

Hi. As I see, there are many Snowbirds external links, but not to Aerobatic Teams web site aerobaticteams.net. There have a Snowbirds page with full history and many photos from Snowbirds and other Candian past teams. Can the editor of this page vote for this site, because the site was suspended for not understend for me causes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.47.21 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Snowbirds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Squadron Members[edit]

Hello all. I am a little disgruntled at the list I've added being labelled as not pertinent to the article, as it information that is not easily sourced, but is often looked for by the public. I can agree with removing the lists of maintenance and logistics personnel, however I do believe that the Command and Air Display Flights are worth including here. Thoughts? (P.S. I apologize for re-adding it the last time. That was unintentional). Fhsig13 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of non- notable people (ie people for whom there is no bio article on Wikipedia) are not allowed. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. If readers are looking for that list here on Wikipedia they are looking in the wrong place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for what is essentially WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I don't see that kind of information as trivial, and those men and women deserve notation here. I also the believe that listing them here would be covered by both the exceptions noted in WP:LISTPEOPLE, as they are all known for a specific event, (the air demos in which they participate), for which a reliable source can be cited if necessary. That also fulfills the second exception coincidentally, as they each form part of their flight, and therefore must all be included for the sake of completeness. - Fhsig13 - (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being part if a military unit is not "an event". We also don't add names based on where they deserve recognition. Wikipedia is not the place to recognize people, deserving or otherwise. We list people only in accordance with policies and guidelines. The complete list of squadron members is just trivia and I can say that as a former Canadian military pilot and deputy CO of a flying squadron, as well as a Wikipedia editor. The people on the list are not notable, even if sourced. A related issue is "who is going to commit to keeping this list up to date?" Sqn pers are posted in and out on an ongoing basis, so it would be a constant task to keep it up to date, even if it was notable and sourced. Furthermore, if a list of all sqn members of 431 Sqn is notable, then lists of all members of all military units would be equally notable. That is why we have WP:LISTPEOPLE. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I will volunteer to keep the list up-to-date, as the pilots don't actually move that much. Secondly, I did not say that being in the squadron is an event, I meant the Air Demos. Those are actually very notable. Lastly, I am NOT saying the whole squadron is notable, just the commanders and the pilots. Please don't twist my words, with all due respect.Fhsig13 (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Airshows are not exceptional events, they are routine. Lots of RCAF Sqns fly in airshows, nothing unique about that. I flew in tons of them too, so what? Large scale field exercises are probably more notable. The specific exception says "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met." People flying in an airshow are not "famous for a specific event", they are just routine performers, hardly "famous". This is exactly the sort of list that WP:LISTPEOPLE is supposed to keep out of articles. So far your additions have been removed by two other editors, including an admin. To convince them, and me, that this list needs to be included you are going to need to come up with a more persuasive case for it, than airshows are exceptional events and sqn members are "famous". - Ahunt (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the people on the list don't meet with WP's notability requirement. And this is just a general article, so such a list is unnecessary detail. If someone wants to see a list of squadron members they can go to the Snowbirds website.- BC  talk to me 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The squadron changes often, so it would be difficult to keep such a section current. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper so it's not intended for lists of people in certain jobs at a specific time. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty reference link.[edit]

Reference link 32 ""Canadian Forces Flight Safety Report: CT114159 Tutor." airforce.forces.gc.ca, 18 May 2007. Retrieved: 17 March 2014." is functional to the host site but the relevant content appears to have been removed. Is anyone privy to a suitable alternate reference? Cheers. H Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback's got you covered! :) https://web.archive.org/web/20150924090601/http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ct114159-tutor-epilogue/hlhp4anw The Legacy (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storage?[edit]

Snowbird Tutor 114155 hanging from the rafters.

I've seen my number edits reverted to 11 aircraft. I did a quick search and don't see any sources that there are any "storage" aircraft of the type. The only one in "storage" I've seen personally is hanging in the Ottawa Aviation Museum, upside down, in the rafters. A quick search revealed a number of others in aviation museums around the country that have been sitting for over two decades, all around the 1990's. And a quick search of the wikipedia article Canadair CT-114 "Survivors" section found missing citations. (I added the missing citations flag after noticing this)

Even if they were available, they've likely been grounded for so long, the cost to bring them out of service would go beyond economical sense (outside of national pride), and they would have to modernize it to match the rest of the fleet. The one I mentioned, which looks to be in the best of shape out of all of them (and hasn't sat on its wheels for too long) has also been modified to hang in the rafters so it would need to be reverted to remove the mounting points. Regardless of their condition, it's not as simple as moving it from long-term "Storage" to "Available Spare".

To respond to the comments to the revisions:

- There are two general references that can be replied upon:
1) CBC (provided in my edit, plus many other media outlets that had a similar story) alluded in the article that the 11 aircraft including two spares were the number prior to the incident.
2) Wikipedia itself; if you read the edit history, "11" aircraft including "two spares" was in place prior to the incident; therefore, it is a simple deduction that there are only 10 left in "active" service, and that one of the "spare" would become "active".
- As stated above, unless they have been actively maintained (which a "Spare" aircraft would be), "Storage" aircraft are not suitable for immediate use as spares. As wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is inappropriate at this time (short of verified references) to assume that the stored aircraft are available to be moved to active status. Although my own edit is a deduction, it is very easy to assume that a plane crash means that there is one less in service.

Therefore, I will be reverting the number to 10 for now. If anyone has a source that is recent within the past year or two (since anything older will likely be inaccurate in terms of its availability for *immediate* deployment as a spare), please answer here and cite sources before changing it back. This is because aircraft, much like cars, cannot be easily converted from long-time storage to operational status.

Best reference to add would be a recent announcement directly from the Department of National Defence which confirms one of these storage aircraft are being recalled for active service. If that is the case, the number should then be bumped back up to 11.

Thank you. The Legacy (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CT-114 in the Canada Aviation and Space Museum is not in storage, it is on non-flyable display and was struck off strength years ago. The official RCAF CT-114 ref (under "Technical specifications") says the RCAF had 26 CT-114s as of 29 July 2019. 431 Sqn has 11 assigned and AETE had two the last time I was in their hangar. The balance, 13 aircraft, are in short term storage for attrition losses. I think you will find 431 Sqn will be back up to 11 shortly, although there is unlikely to be a press release to that effect. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to continuously change the aircraft number in the article every time an aircraft is written off. The standard number of a/c the air force maintains is what is mentioned in the references (and on the squadron's website) and any changes to this number in the article should be properly cited. The latest changes have not been referenced, so technically should be reverted. Aircraft are always quickly replaced from storage to deal with attrition. Some replacement Tutors are in storage at Aerospace & Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron, CFB Mountain View, Ontario. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tutor-training-jets-retired-from-service/article22404174/ -- BC  talk to me 19:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the reference Ahunt, and I will add that to the article. However, I find it troubling that there are no solid references on 1) The number of currently available aircraft for flying duties, and 2) How many of the storage aircraft are able to be flown. It is a massive assumption to believe that a 57 year old aircraft will be available to fly in a very short period of time, especially considering it provides no strategic nor tactical benefit (compared to the two-decade newer CF-188 which have their own maintenance issues). As per my original comment, it's not as simple as dusting off a stored aircraft; they would need to complete a wide range of maintenance checks, and the structure needs to be completely sound. It is also worth noting that this is the second crash of a Snowbird in half a year. I will use the current consensus for now, but we need vastly better and current sources. The Legacy (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say how they are doing it these days, but when I was stationed in Moose Jaw, storage aircraft for 431 Sqn included several that were already painted in sqn colours and already modified for use, with smoke systems, VHF radios, etc. Because of the more demanding role than training, they actually rotated operational squadron aircraft through storage and into operational use on a regular basis. This had the effect of keeping the airframe hours fairly uniform, as well as keeping the aircraft updated for modification status and inspections. It also meant that replacement aircraft were available on very short notice. You should probably note that one of the principles of war is "anticipation at all levels" and the Snowbirds crashing aircraft is hardly a surprise event, so the military is never caught off-guard when it happens, including having replacement aircraft ready to fly. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 December 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowbirds → Snowbirds (aerobatic team) – Not the primary topic; see the disambiguation page at Snowbird. 162 etc. (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move per nom. This obviously isn't the PTOPIC, even for the plural form. O.N.R. (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the bird has 6,666 views, the person has 3,833 compared with only 2,126[[1]] for the aerobatic team. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snowbirds_(aerobatic_team)&oldid=1207548227"