Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #80 on: March 21, 2020, 07:38:31 AM »
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.

I tried to do this last year just to see if I could buy a ticket from those exact 2 locations, Santiago to Sydney.  I also just tried again.  A ticket 1 way are about 1500$.  Every one stops in the USA.  The one that didn’t was a non-stop flight for $2500.  So I tried to buy one. I went through the steps and at the end the ticket went up to $9500.  I clicked accept. Then it sent me back to a flight that had a stop in Los Angeles.  I didn’t come across a non-stop flight today when I searched, but I was short in time. I’m not saying they aren’t any non-stop flights, but if they do have them the airlines sure don’t want the average Joe on them.

On a FE map, Santiago to Sydney with a stop in Los Angeles is a straight line. It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.  If I’m not mistaken all 3 have a latitude of 33 with Los Angeles in the northern hemisphere. So that’s 132 degrees out of the way.  66 up and 66 back down.

I went on quantas.com. Maybe you can try to buy one of these flights and let us know how you get on. I was actually pretty surprised, given the global COVID-19 pandemic, that I'd be offered anything at all..



I think the non stop over the Pacific is the important one. It’s 4 times zones closer than over Africa, but they always seem to go the long route. Which leaves the question. How big is the Pacific Ocean?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #81 on: March 21, 2020, 10:08:24 AM »
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

Why would it not add up? I've not looked at the figures, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Circumnavigating_the_globe
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #82 on: March 21, 2020, 11:45:58 AM »
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

Why would it not add up? I've not looked at the figures, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Circumnavigating_the_globe

For one your traveling 13 hours over 10 time zones and end up over a hour earlier than when you left. Just by looking at it you should be 3 hours later than the time you left. 
10:00 + 13hrs= 23:00
23:00- 10 time zones = 13:00

Unless I’m looking at it wrong

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #83 on: March 21, 2020, 11:53:52 AM »
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

[Edit] got the times wrong first go..

Sydney is 14 hours ahead of Santiago, so that'd be a 13 hour flight minus the 14 hour difference on the way out and 15 hour flight plus 14 hours on the way back. Winds are predominantly east to west down there so you'd expect the outbound to be shorter than the return. Average flight time is 14 hours, direct distance is 11340km so average ground speed is 810km/h which is certainly in the right ball park.

I think the non stop over the Pacific is the important one. It’s 4 times zones closer than over Africa, but they always seem to go the long route. Which leaves the question. How big is the Pacific Ocean?

Not with you there, both the outbound and the return are direct flights so would be more or less the same route.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 11:57:33 AM by robinofloxley »

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #84 on: March 21, 2020, 11:58:56 AM »
My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #85 on: March 21, 2020, 12:11:37 PM »
My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.
870km/h outbound, 756km/h on the way back for an average 810km/h overall. A quick google suggests the jet stream average is between 129-225km/h but it does vary a lot. Also bear in mind that an aeroplane doesn't always follow the shortest route. Depending on wind etc., the most economical route may be a slightly longer one. Also an aeroplane takes time to accelerate and climb to cruising speed and altitude, so as long as the figures end up in the right ballpark, there's no reason to doubt them.

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #86 on: March 21, 2020, 01:28:04 PM »
My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.
870km/h outbound, 756km/h on the way back for an average 810km/h overall. A quick google suggests the jet stream average is between 129-225km/h but it does vary a lot. Also bear in mind that an aeroplane doesn't always follow the shortest route. Depending on wind etc., the most economical route may be a slightly longer one. Also an aeroplane takes time to accelerate and climb to cruising speed and altitude, so as long as the figures end up in the right ballpark, there's no reason to doubt them.

“Extended over-water operations” means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #87 on: March 21, 2020, 01:41:09 PM »
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #88 on: March 21, 2020, 02:16:06 PM »
“Extended over-water operations” means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well I believe this is a 4 engined 747 so if anything can operate outside that limitation, that'd be a good one to choose. Certainly there are aircraft allowed to operate outside these limits, otherwise Hawaii would be a tricky place to get to, wouldn't it, no matter whether the earth is flat or a globe.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I was responding to your post where you said you'd struggled to find any non-stop flights between these destinations. I thought you were just questioning the existence of this as a scheduled route. It turns out that you can book direct with Quantas who are the people who operate the route, sometimes themselves and sometimes through a partner airline. Going direct to Quantas makes it easy to find these flights.

Now we seem to be drifting off into other issues such as how fast the jetstream is or what the cruising speed of the aircraft is or whether the quoted times make sense and now it's "extended over-water operations".

I thought at first you were proposing to buy a ticket, but struggled to find one, so I assumed you'd be excited by the prospect of actually finding a site where you could do that. Apparently not.

Look, the route appears to exist, they use a sensible aircraft to fly it, you can apparently buy tickets, the stated times of departure and arrival and average ground speeds are all in the right ballpark and you've even been provided with a video showing the take off and landing and the route being followed on a seat-back screen. How much more do you want?

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #89 on: March 21, 2020, 10:51:54 PM »
Also LATAM (Chilean State Airline) fly Santiago-Melbourne (7000 miles on a RE model) 3 times per week, Flight Numbers LA804/LA805.  Its not difficult to find.  Flight times Chile-bound last week were 12 hrs 7 min, 11 hrs 53 min and 12 hrs 10 min (FlightRadar24).  That gives airspeeds of around 580 mph, reasonable for a Boeing 787. 

No stops in LA, no stops at Area 51, just Santiago to Melbourne across the Arctic Circle.  Flight times Australia-bound around 520 mph (due to prevailing winds. 

And ETOPS aircraft have to remain 50 miles from land? Seriously?  Ask the population of Iceland.  The regulation is currently 4-hrs flying time at single engine cruise speed, which is madness from a safety point of view, but gives almost no restriction to routing.   


Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #90 on: March 21, 2020, 11:45:52 PM »
Well it seems that the Quantas QF323 flight operated by LATAM under the flight number LA802 that I picked out earlier left Sydney at 10:30am, 1/2 hour later than planned, but arrived in Santiago just fine. The purple track is the actual flightpath and the dashed red is the theoretical zero wind shortest/best (great circle) route.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/la802#243dd93e

Note that the times are given in UTC so add +11 hours for Australian Eastern Daylight Time (i.e. local time in Sydney).

« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 11:49:38 PM by robinofloxley »

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #91 on: March 22, 2020, 09:51:42 PM »
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.   

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1354
    • View Profile
Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #92 on: March 22, 2020, 11:06:09 PM »
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #93 on: March 23, 2020, 01:09:18 AM »
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.

This is not the exact one I’m talking about but I’m short on time and I think this is close to what I’m talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.351

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #94 on: March 23, 2020, 01:10:48 AM »
Yes they are real, because you see yourself boarding a plane do you not? They don’t go “off” the earth 😂, because you simply cannot go off the earth with gravity lol.

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #95 on: March 23, 2020, 01:11:55 AM »
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.
This has been addressed numerous times.

These airlines offer such flights for purchase.

The thing is, if you buy such a ticket, it is:

A) a NON-REFUNDABLE PURCHASE; and,
B) You end up typically moved to a different flight with a stop over (one that conveniently matches the Azimuthal Equidistant Map).

For those rare non-stop flights that do occur, it would not be surprising to find that aerial refueling is taking place, something of which the passengers would be totally unaware.
He said a nonstop plane ticket

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #96 on: March 23, 2020, 10:20:58 AM »
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.

This is not the exact one I’m talking about but I’m short on time and I think this is close to what I’m talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.351

So if I can summarize. In order for these flights to be legal, they must comply with CFR § 91.509 to allow them to fly more then 50nm from land and additionally comply with CFR § 121.351 to allow "extended over-water operations", which means they need:
  • Life jackets for everyone on board (CFR § 91.509)
  • Life rafts, flares and a portable radio (CFR § 91.509)
  • At least two independent long range communications systems (CFR § 121.351)
  • At least two independent long range navigation systems (CFR § 121.351)
These aircraft are all equipped with life jackets, life rafts, flares and portable radios, covering 1) & 2).

They are equipped with satellite communications and HF radios, which takes care of 3).

They are equipped with ring laser based inertial navigation systems and GPS/GNSS which takes care of 4).

Basically good to go.

But lets keep going. There are two aircraft types being used. Quantas QF27/QF28 use the Boeing 747-400 and the LATAM operated QF323/QF324 use the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner.

The Dreamliner is ETOPS-330 certified. What does that mean? It means it must at all times be no more than 330 minutes (5.5 hours) from a suitable diversion airfield in the event of an emergency. Now clearly since this is a 12+ hour flight, this is tricky to comply with, but there are options. For the first segment of the flight they can either return to Australia or divert to New Zealand (probably Christchurch) and for the last segment they just carry on to Santiago. There is a point in the flight however where they are too far in to reach Christchurch, but still more than 5.5 hours flying time from Santiago. For that segment, possibly Tahiti is the alternate, which may explain why the route taken appears to be somewhat further north than strictly necessary. So long as they can remain no more than 5.5 hours away from one of these airfields, they are legal.

The 747-400 is under less stringent rules since it is an older 4 engined aircraft. The ETOPS rules were originally intended for twin engined aircraft, but are also now being applied to newer 4 engined ones as well.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2020, 10:27:09 AM by robinofloxley »

Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Reply #97 on: March 25, 2020, 05:47:28 PM »
Not sure if anyone is still following this thread, but earlier I posted flight options for a return Sydney <-> Santiago. The outbound took place 4 days ago. The return flight, Quantas QF28, a Boeing 747-400 has just begun, you can track it if you want for the next 12 hours or so. Lots of options, but I went with https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/VHOEE because it gives you lots of interesting information including all the waypoints on the planned route.

So far we have evidence that:
  • You can easily find tickets via qantas.com
  • The flights are legal under the relevant rules
  • The flight times and distances and speeds all make sense
  • There is video evidence from passengers on at least one of these flights
To be honest, if this were a flight from London to New York, this would be more than enough evidence to convince anyone, but obviously it's a problem for the flat earth, so denial and disbelief seem to be the default settings. Anyway here's where the aircraft is at the moment...


« Last Edit: March 25, 2020, 05:55:42 PM by robinofloxley »