*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3289
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2022, 06:13:22 AM »
The video is almost 2 hours long. What are we looking for and where?

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #41 on: May 05, 2022, 06:26:22 AM »
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.

Actually, the Wiki does provide a number of links referencing that pilots say they are taught to fly over an FE -



I haven’t yet had time to watch this video, but I assume it goes into great detail on all the Flat Earth pilot training materials, manuals, syllabi etc that would provide the evidence to enable the wiki to say ‘pilots taught to fly over the flat earth’.

It’s strange that the wiki doesn’t link to these directly, perhaps you could add those links in to avoid forcing people to watch 2hr YouTube videos?

Still, there’s a good opportunity to remove the confusing and obfuscatory paragraph about the letter and what that means.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15175
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2022, 09:42:34 AM »
Gonzo, please drop this "Hmmm, how very strange! No doubt this minor issue will be amended momentarily!" facade. If you want to make an argument, just make it.

Similarly, if you want to make changes to the Wiki, your best option is to follow our contributor model and... actually contribute. Simply demanding that someone does work for you rarely works around here.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2022, 09:49:22 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #43 on: May 05, 2022, 10:12:16 AM »
Hi Pete,

I think my argument is clear. The wiki makes claims, then fails to back them up with evidence. It's implying things that aren't the case, with vague language, and when challenged it's admitted some of it isn't flat earth related. Should I be challenging the wiki somewhere else? More than happy to be pointed to a more appropriate location.

The 'contributor model' you speak of, this is the creating a thread in the projects forum? More than happy to write up a new Aviation page for comment if that's what you mean, and post it there.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2047
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #44 on: May 05, 2022, 12:26:35 PM »
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.

Actually, the Wiki does provide a number of links referencing that pilots say they are taught to fly over an FE -


I did watch the video and can personally attest that it was full of half-truths and implications about flying over a ‘flat earth’.  There were plenty of false implications made in the discussions of the GPS system, aircraft gyro systems, and the flight tracking systems.  Who knows if the statements were made because of ignorance or because it fit in with the sponsors of the show and the fact that there was some promotional time given to his business?  It was funny because this flying service in right in my ‘back yard’ so to speak.  I learned to fly in the same state and area and have 3 or 4 times the flight experience stated by the pilot in the video.  Years ago, I had an electronics shop at a nearby airport and actually worked on aircraft radios and flight navigational equipment including gyros.  My shop was FAA certified.  The flight instructor did state that everyone should do their own research, think for yourself, and form your own opinions.  I did all that and the preponderance of the evidence shows that the earth is a sphere.   
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15175
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #45 on: May 05, 2022, 05:09:21 PM »
I think my argument is clear.
Your argument is obvious but you are (or, well, were) trying your best not to just state what you mean. You have now done so, so I'm happy.

and when challenged it's admitted some of it isn't flat earth related
I see no "admission" here. The part of the page you questioned was talking about geocentrism. You assumed, incorrectly, that it was also talking about FE and spent an excessively long time stating this assumption. You were then corrected on that. Life goes on.

Should I be challenging the wiki somewhere else? More than happy to be pointed to a more appropriate location.
Eh, technically Flat Earth Projects would be more appropriate, but it's hardly a big deal in this case. I can move this thread there if you'd like, or it can just continue here.

The 'contributor model' you speak of, this is the creating a thread in the projects forum? More than happy to write up a new Aviation page for comment if that's what you mean, and post it there.
It was a more general comment - whether it's the Wiki, the forum, or some other area of our site/services, the best way to see the changes you'd like to see made is to put in the work yourself.

But to answer your question more specifically: yes, if you'd like to propose changes to or a rewrite of a page, creating a Flat Earth Projects thread with your proposed changes would be the way to go.

Just to pre-empt some disappointment: if you believe that the page should be rewritten to state the RET consensus on aviation (as seems apparent from your tone thus far), you probably shouldn't expect much success. If you do intend on making an earnest contribution to FE, however, that's always welcome.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2022, 05:12:48 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #46 on: May 12, 2022, 10:29:24 AM »
Hi Pete,

Haha, no, no disappointment here!

Sorry for the late reply, been busy with work.

If there is agreement the 'RAF College' section is not about flat earth then can someone explain why is it front and centre on that page? It is confusing for readers. The claim is that 'the Royal Air Force teaches their pilots the "real thing"'. Can anyone explain what that means?
Also:
- The letter quoted from The Spectator has the writer as hailing from 'RAF College Cranfield' when there is not, and has never been, any such place.
- The letter makes no claim about the training of RAF pilots (or indeed anything related to the RAF).
- A quick skim of abstracts from the Journal of Navigation from that period shows no article that is claiming that the Earth is at the centre of the of solar system, or that the sun and the moon actually go around the Earth.

It just seems to have a very tenuous link to anything Flat Earth related. If it remains, perhaps it should be moved to a geocentrism page to avoid confusion?

The next section, 'Study Guide', uses a section of bullet point assumptions from university basic flight dynamics study materials.
The assumptions are:
Quote
-There is a flat Earth
-There is a non-rotating Earth
-The aircraft has constant mass
-The aircraft has a rigid body

This has been critiqued before, but these are common assumptions for basic flight dynamics and anyone claiming the first (and the second) as evidence of flat earth is showing a lack of knowledge. Aircraft don't have constant mass, nor do they have rigid bodies, but making these assumptions allow the teaching, understanding of, complex concepts. Why would the first bullet be given more weight than the others?
In aviation we make many assumptions to allow for quicker and easier calculations/comparisons etc, such as a standard atmosphere of temperature and pressure. This doesn't mean we think the actual atmosphere is like this when encountered in real life.

The first line in the wiki claims:
Quote
"Aviation, or air transport, refers to the activities surrounding mechanical flight and the aircraft industry. Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth."
Then it fails to provide any clear evidence for that.

I will, when time allows, work my way through the linked references.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1261
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki on aviation
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2022, 06:59:15 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
"Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth."
Neither statement is entirely true.  I have my private pilot's license.  I have both IFR and VFR rating.  Using either way to fly, it does not matter what shape the earth is.  Using VFR you see where you're flying and fly accordingly.  The only instrument you really need for point to point flying using VFR is a good compass.  For IFR you need to rely on your instruments as you may fly in conditions where you might not be able to see the ground.  Amongst the many you need the most important are compass and altitude unless something starts to go wrong.  Today, with GPS readily available, that  is used heavily too.  I recall no one during my training telling me to treat the earth as flat.  It just does not matter from the pilot's perspective as long as he can either see where he is going, or his instruments are giving the information he or she needs.


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Anyone can see that a missile with a range of 1,500 miles and an accuracy of 5 meters will be affected by the curvature of the Earth.
The Tomahawk uses terrain contour matching and/or digital scene matching area correlation for navigation.  Basically a "map" consisting of 3D information regarding the terrain to be flown over and objects that will be encountered along the way is fed into the missile before launch.  It simply uses it's radar and inertia based instruments to follow the map to it's target.  Again, the shape of the earth, or whether it is rotating, is immaterial as long as that map is accurate.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2022, 07:05:35 PM by BillO »
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.