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.
The earth can be treated as flat
It sounds like you are supporting the premise of that Wiki page, that pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.
Well, let's get our facts straight here, as you seem to be confusing a few things. That flight dynamics course is not for pilots, but rather undergraduate aeronautical engineers. It goes far, far deeper into flight dynamics than any pilot training course would. You won't find may pilots conversant with eigenvalues, for example. Moreover, that specific course is for a very specific thing - modelling aircraft behaviour over short time periods. To model the earth as round would make for far, far more complex equations, without adding any real value to the models. The same is equally true for modelling mass changes due to fuel burn, or the distortions of the wings and fuselage as the aircraft manoeuvres. Both of those things happen, just as the earth is spherical, but there is no value in the effort required to model them in the context of the subject being discussed. For other subjects, such as long-range performance, the situation is clearly very different, and appropriate modelling assumptions need to be made.
Locally speaking, for most human activities, the earth might as well be flat. This is not evidence of the earth actually being flat; it's just a consequence of the very large ball we live on compared to our size as humans living on it. It looks exactly as you would expect it to look if you are 6 feet tall living on a 25,000 mile circumference ball.
Is anybody actually seriously holding this up as proof of a FE?
Where does it say proof?
Well, aside from the title of the video you posted immediately below this question, and in the link on the page we are discussing, I had rather assumed that, given it was in the 'Flat Earth wiki', you were using it in your evidence pile for reasons the earth is flat, just as the creator of the video you linked to is doing.
It's an interesting point of aviation. The rest of that Wiki page cites many more examples in which the earth is treated as flat, including in military missile dynamics.
Interesting, indeed, but if you don't acknowledge that the people using the flat earth assumption don't actually think the earth is flat then you are being dishonest with your work.
This video is unbelievably, terribly bad - I'm surprised you're associating yourself with it. I watched a few snippets:
- the discussion around Tomahawk versus SAM engagements. This is just, again, a complete twisting of a simplifying assumption with it being some evidence of a FE. The ranges involved in a SAM versus cruise missile are trivial compared to the curvature of the earth. A flat earth model is therefore completely reasonable. Note the other assumptions made - straight and level flight (despite the fact that cruise missiles manoeuvre), level terrain, one missile per engagement - these are all simplifying assumptions. They are not necessarily what occurs in the real world.
- at 17:15 he angrily rants about a similar flight model to the one linked to in the wiki. He keeps saying 'a rigid aircraft of constant mass', seemingly oblivious to the fact that aircraft are not actually rigid, and they aren't of constant mass either, and the world isn't flat, but all three make for much simpler calculations when you're designing aircraft. He rants on about challenging a 'glober' to find a paper where flight dynamics are modelled using a round earth. That ain't gonna happen, because it would be a ridiculous piece of work. If you're modelling a short period oscillation, or dutch roll, or some other aspect of stability or control, then the tiny, tiny shift in the weight vector as the aircraft moves a few hundred metres around the planet would make a ludicrously small difference to the answers obtained, despite it causing a major, major headache in terms of complexity. Citing this as evidence for the earth being flat merely betrays a lack of understanding of the specific subject, as well as science in general.
- He undermines his own argument later on, and indeed yours, when he looks at the text around 21:00 onwards - it gives a great example of the limitations of a flat earth assumption. It's fine for short range activities, but when you need to consider longer distances, the flat earth assumption can no longer be used. That is staring him in the face - he even highlights it himself (25:00) - he seems to try to wave it away but to be honest his argument was somewhat incoherent and it's not really clear what he's trying to say.