Talk:Norwood Memorial Airport

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

Aviation: Airports

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the airport project.

Airports aren't structures

User:Carabinieri has twice resorted this article into Category:Massachusetts building and structure stubs, but airports aren't structures: they're areas of land that may contain zero or more structures, more like an army base, city neighbourhood, or park. There are actually many structures inside the Norwood airport fence. David 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though technically airports aren't structures, they're generally treated as structures, when it comes to categorizing and stubbing. Category:Airports is a great-great-...-grandchild of Category:buildings and structures by type and Category:airport stubs is a child of Category:building and structure stubs.--Carabinieri 18:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start a discussion over there about reparenting the category. The biggest irony is that some airports don't have any structures at all, much less a terminal building, while the vast majority that do have buildings have nothing recognizable as a terminal. I suspect that the category was set up that way by someone who has experienced only large airports through their public terminal buildings. In the meantime, I'd like to request that you not compound the problem by recategorizing all the airports, since we'll have to undo all of those changes if people agree to a correction in the category hierarchy. David 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also check with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports if I were you. But please consider the fact that categorization is alway inexact and sometimes it's necessary to categorize in a way that it fits best, even if it's not perfect.--Carabinieri 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good idea. I agree that categorization is never optimal, but in this case, I cannot think of a single case where this categorization makes sense. It's not a matter of airports sometimes being structures and sometimes not. David 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added June 4th, 2007 crash

Added an aviation accident that occurred on June 4th. --64.61.49.70 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No IATA or ICAO code

While "KOWD" looks like an ICAO code, it's not one -- at least, not according to [1]. It does appear that OWD is an IATA code though ([2]), so I'll put that back in. David 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Federal Aviation Administration (U.S. Dept. of Transportation) publication LOCATION IDENTIFIERS FAAO 7350.7, Chapter 1, Section 4:

1-4-1 Use of Location Identifiers

An international location indicator is a four-letter code used in international telecommunications. The location indicator for airports in the contiguous United States is the three-letter identifier preceded by "K".

According to National Climatic Data Center (U.S. Dept. of Commerce) publication DATA DOCUMENTATION FOR DATA SET 9767B:

The USA representative to the ICAO is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA assigns all Location Indicators that appear in the publication, and also assigns Location Indicators that are not part of the ICAO Aeronautical fixed stations network, and do not appear in the publication.

These documents indicate that any airport in the 48 contiguous United States which has a 3-letter FAA identifier (as opposed to a combination of letters and numbers) automatically has an ICAO identifier, even if it is not published in ICAO Document 7910. Therefore, I believe KOWD is an accurate ICAO code for this airport and should be listed in the article as such. -- Zyxw 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Instead of using that ICAO list from jetliners.net, the unofficial ICAO World Airfield Catalogue has a list of U.S. airports which includes those not published by the ICAO. This list shows KOWD as the airport's ICAO identifier. -- Zyxw 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a tricky one. Neither of those citations you include actually states that the four letter identifiers assigned by the FAA are ICAO identifiers -- the first one uses the word "international identifiers" (i.e. GPS codes), and the second one explicitly states that "The FAA assigns all Location Indicators that appear in the publication, and also assigns Location Indicators that are not part of the ICAO Aeronautical fixed stations network, and do not appear in the publication" (emphasis mine). How do we know whether "KOWD" belongs to the first or second group? If it's in the second, then it's not an ICAO code — by definition, an ICAO code is one published by the ICAO. Canada also has many airports with four-letter identifiers that are not ICAO codes. It's worth noting that the DAFIF (though now close to a year out of date) did not count "KOWD" as an ICAO identifier, and that is an official U.S. DoD database. We'll need to find a more authoritative source to resolve this one. David 02:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower status

The article claims the tower *will* close at a date in the past. To the best of my knowledge the tower is still operating. Can anyone with verify? 50.195.48.92 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tower is still operating. Since personal research isn't good enough for wikipedia (I was there last weekend), here's a link to the FAA airport facility directory. Note the dates at the bottom and the tower assigned frequency and hours of operation. Flickboy (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Naval Outlying Landing Field Norwood be merged into Norwood Memorial Airport. I think that the content in Outlying Landing Field Norwood can easily be explained in the Norwood Memorial Airport article, and the airport article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Also, the Outlying Landing Field article has only one source and may fail the Notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per multiple sources that exist online, and the fact that this was first a Naval facility, which establishes notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]