Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Gonzo

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 24, 2022, 03:15:11 PM »
Yes  - to scheduled times.

Schedule times are published before a lot of factors are known, such as winds, which can affect flight times. Also, scheduled departure time is the time at which the aircraft will start pushing back from the gate. At some airports, such as Heathrow, take-off can be 30 minutes later, or it can be as little as five minutes later, depending on the runway(s) in use, location of the gate, and traffic situation. Scheduled times also add in a buffer for air holding at destination based on statistical likelihood. Some airlines also add in a buffer so that they are consistently early (or at last not late!) for their punctuality statistics.

However, as I said, once the aircraft has actually taken off, and the number of variables has been greatly reduced, the ETA generated will be accurate to within a minute or two.
In fact we are working on a concept called 'Target Time of Arrival' (TTA) for long haul flights into LHR which will give the flight crew a 2-minute window during which to arrive. Gloabl aviation only works through predictability. To claim there are great unknowns out there in terms of flight time is just not correct, just as it is to say we don't understand winds in the southern hemisphere.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 24, 2022, 10:18:58 AM »

Its fine saying that software was written for plane flights. Yet its so weird that on an out journey a plane can take longer than expected to get there and on the in journey it gets back quicker than expected. of course we blame tail winds or head winds for this. Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth? It never ceases to amaze me how frequently many people get off a flight an hour before they were due to land. Its actually quite worrying given the consequences of a plane taking off and no one knowing when it will eventually land.

How do you define 'expected'? I can sit in my control tower at Heathrow and see the expected arrival time of a flight just airborne from Singapore or Los Angeles, and lo and behlod it turns up within a minute or two of that time. Are you comparing actual times to scheduled times?

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 14, 2022, 09:50:02 PM »
Tom,

Please, it would really help us if you could express your belief on what the Soviets achieved in space.

To me your position is confusing.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« 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.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« 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.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« 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.


7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: May 04, 2022, 10:21:31 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.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: May 04, 2022, 09:47:36 PM »
So therefore when the wiki claims that RAF pilots are ‘taught the right thing’, it means taught a globe earth?

Ok, glad we agree and have cleared that up then!

Might want to make it a little more clear, though.

The first paragraph needs amending then…

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.




9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: May 04, 2022, 09:17:52 PM »
A little ps to this thread.

The wiki states:

Quote
Royal Air Force College
Taking wrong directions would obviously have dire consequences when flying supersonic in a combat jet, therefore the Royal Air Force teaches their pilots the “real thing”. From the Aug 16, 1979 issue of New Scientist (Archive) we read on p.543:

Earthly

  “  Andrew Hill ("Darwin rules—OK?", 12 July p 127) says "...even in the Spectator, we rarely find serious assertions that the Sun goes around the Earth".

One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial, but when survival depends on belief, then it matters that beliefs correspond to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the celestial sphere, which is centered on a fixed earth and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common sense observation. The Sun and the Moon move across the inner surface of this sphere and hence perforce go around the earth. This means, that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as it may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be.

If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will f‌ind that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest. ”
                  —Darcy Reddyhoff, Royal Air Force College

Ignoring the fact that the wiki confuses RAF pilot training with the Royal Institue of Navigation's journal (let alone using an unverified claim about that journal!), I decided to do a little research on RAF pilot training as it's not too far away from my own study for my MA.

I visited the RAF Air Defence Museum at RAF Neatishead in the UK. On display there they have the RAF Navigation Manual used at the time the quoted letter was written.

I had a look. No mention of flat earth, or anything that could be construed to be describing such.

Plenty of mentions of globes and how to navigate on a globe earth, though.

Might be worth editing the wiki a little?






10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 04, 2022, 06:30:07 AM »
Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

Probably because they had already won the space race by that point. Again, it was called the space race and not the 'put a man on the moon' race.

Someone has to approve the plan and give the go-ahead for exorbitant release of public monies, real or fake. The gravy train has to wind down at some point. Note that immediately after Apollo the NASA gravy train of public money also slowed significantly and everyone stopped caring about the Moon.

Tom, you are showing how little you know about this subject.

NASA’s budget was at its peak in 1966, when the Gemini programme was still active.

And no, everyone didn’t ‘stop caring about the moon’.

You are aware of Artemis?

Please can you distill down your view on space? It’s coming across as very confused.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 03, 2022, 06:24:53 PM »
Tom,

I agree with stack.

Please can you express what your position is on the Soviet space programme. Maybe I'm missing it but you aren't making a coherent position clear.

Do you accept that the USSR (Note, not Russia!!!) did go into space? It seems from your last post that you do.

I urge you to do reading on the subject. It's not speculation. Leonov, Chertok, Titov, Gerovitch, and Chelomei as well as the standard texts by Siddiqi, Clark, Oberg, Cadbury and French and Burgess are valuable texts.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 03, 2022, 11:08:30 AM »
Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 11, 2022, 12:44:06 PM »
In 2019 170,000 thousand people visited the Cook Islands which has a permanent population of just 17,000. It's already just a large air travel and hospitality and tourism industry. They clearly have infrastructure.

Resources come from other islands and international commercial development. They aren't alone. The current population is almost meaninless. The concept of travel exists.

May as well claim that a small town in the middle of the US is so primitive and remote from civilization and couldnt possibly be a hub for fuel and overnight stays.  ::)

So thats an average of, what, 470 ish a day?

Whereas the Hawaiian archiplegao has about, what, 26,000 per day?

You're not understanding the issue. It's not about remoteness, it's not about fuel (we know long haul aircraft operate SCL-AKL direct so why would they need to stop for fuel???), or runway length or primitiveness, it's about the economics. Why would an airline set up a hub in the Cook Islands?

Have a look at who operates into Raratonga, and have a think about why that's the case.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 11, 2022, 11:47:58 AM »
Have a look at the populations of the Hawaiian islands v the Cook islands, the value of tourism and tourist numbers for the Hawaiian Islands v the Cook islands.

I'll wait.

Quite happy to agree that HNL is a hub (for Hawaiian Airlines - there's a coincidence for you). I really don't think you get airline economics. On what basis would the Cook Islands become a hub? For whom?


15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 11, 2022, 08:41:48 AM »
Tom,

Magnetic Declination is the reason. not the excuse. Magnetic Declination is well-understood by in aviation and maritme industries, especially in the polar areas where the declination is significant.

Within ICAO there is a debate as to whether to swap to true compass rather than magnetic compass as the navigational reference.

Quote
Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

Sorry, you mean he thinks he flew from Chile, and then approached Australia from the SW of it? i.e. flew all the way around it? Or do you mean he was heading SW towards Australia?


Why don't United fly direct from SCL to SYD?

There are many reasons. One that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that this would be an ICAO Fifth Freedom flight, in that an airline from state A (United/USA) would be flying from state B (Chile) to state C (Australia). These flights require international air services agreements between all the participating states (in this case USA, Chile and Australia), and negotiations are often protracted. The example you cite (United flying SCL-IAH-LAX-SYD does not require fifth freedom rights, as the whole journey would be covered by the more basic four freedoms (basically 2x state A to state B pairings, Chile to USA and then USA to Australia).

That's of course on top of the massive ecomonic argument against United flying direct SCL-SYD. I'm sure you appreciate this already, but a direct SCL-SYD flight would requitre, let's say, 150 passengers wanting to fly on that route. By flying SCL-IAH/LAX-SYD United can fill the SCL-IAH flight with a load of passengers, some who wish to fly SCL-IAH-JFK, some who wish to fly SCL-IAH-YVR, some SCL-IAH-DFW, SCL-IAH-SEA, SCL-IAH-FRA, SCL-IAH-LHR etc etc etc, and the same applies heading to SYD, United can fill the LAX-SYD with, yes, the ten people who departed SCL and want to go to SYD, but also people who have flown SEA-LAX-SYD, JFK-LAX-SYB, BOS-LAX-SYD, MIA-LAX-SYD etc etc. That's how hub and spoke operations work. If United were to open up a direct route they would see a significant increase in cost in terms of hotel accommodation for crews. Crews would fly IAH-SCL, then have one night in SCL, then fly SCL-SYD (this would no doubt require 4x pilots due to crew rest on this long leg, whereas IAH-SCL would only require 2 - so you're already adding up the cost). When the flight arrives in SYD, they'd need maybe 2 or 3 nights minimum rest, before coming back to SCL for another night or two before flying back to IAH. 10-12 days away from home base (IAH) would certainly mean quite an increased requirement for days off after this long duty period, reducing staff productivity further, and this might trigger union agrements for increased payments/allowances.

This is why the middle east airlines (Emirates, Etihad etc) have grown so much over the past two decades on the Europe-Asia/Australasia market. By being based in the 'middle', they can fly Europe-Middle East and connect passengers on to Middle East-Asia flights. European and Australiasian-based airlines have a disadvantage in terms of cost. British Airways used to fly London to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Auckland etc (all via Hong Kong or Singapore), but now only fly to Sydney. In those days the Auckland trip was a 12 or 13 day trip. Very expensive in terms of staffing. This is why QANTAS has been trying to move towards direct flights to Europe with the 787.

Quote
Anyhwere can be a hub though

No. Hub and spoke operations are based on passenger (and cargo) flow and demand, and economics, not primarily on geography. Fuel stops (or tech stops as they're called) mostly went out of use in the late 80s early 90s. The same arguments I outline above apply (even more so) to any remote Pacific island as a 'hub'.

Supersonic flight
Your post of the FR24 screenshot looks like a data glitch. Notice the altitude, 13,000ft? A third of the way into the flight from AKL-SCL, but the map seems to have it over AKL? Having examined this sort of data for my job, I say it's a data glitch. Notice in that video how there is only very occaisonally a populated True Airspeed field?

Vmo (Max operating speed) for a 787 is just under 600mph. At 1000mph the wings are coming off and the aircraft will disintegrate.

Air Canada/Air China

Both these operators are in the Star Alliance, so they will be codesharing on many flights (basically this means you can buy tickets for Air China flights from Air Canada, and vice versa). All I see from that screenshot is an Air China flight bewteen two of its hubs in China, then a flight from an Air China hub to an Air Canada hub. Simple.


Having done a quick search for SCL-SYD routes:

Delta
SCL-ATL(Delta hub)-LAX (Delta hub)-SYD

American Airlines/QANTAS
SCL-DFW(AA Hub)-YVR-SYD (this demonstrates the value of airline codesharing/alliances. YVR is neither an AA hub nor a QANTAS hub, but because the two airlines both serve it from their own hubs passengers can easily connect.

American Airlines/QANTAS
SCL-MIA(AA hub)-LAX(AA hub)-SYD (same again)

It all makes sense when you think about it.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 01, 2022, 05:50:58 AM »
Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.

See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)

forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0

You can currently book Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM, as well as Sydney to Jo'burg as stack says.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: March 31, 2022, 01:36:04 PM »
No need to call anyone an idiot, the photographer is a well known astrophotographer.

Action80, have you seen the ISS go overhead?
Yep.

It was a dot, traveling rather fast.

I'd recommend using some decent binoculars or even a telescope, it’s quite easy to make out the shape.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: March 31, 2022, 11:53:35 AM »
No need to call anyone an idiot, the photographer is a well known astrophotographer.

Action80, have you seen the ISS go overhead?

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: March 31, 2022, 08:45:25 AM »
To be fair I've never seen any flightpath that doesn't make sense on the globe, when one considers all the factors used in flight planning and route selection.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« on: March 30, 2022, 06:22:41 AM »
I'm not sure the fact someone has written and published a book is a particularly high bar for quality content.
Hey, at least you identified a fact today.

Progress in action, step by step.

Lovely to hear from you again, I’d really appreciate it if you could point out where I’ve not been using facts.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >