[stack]

The video is almost 2 hours long. What are we looking for and where?

[Gonzo]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Gonzo]

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.

[RonJ]

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.   

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Gonzo]

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:

-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:

"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.

[BillO]

"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.

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.

[SimonC]

I told my software engineer friend about FE. He told me he was the programmer who wrote the routing software for the Canadian Air Traffic Control System. The US uses airways, set routes like interstates. The Canadians wanted to route their planes straight from departure airport straight to the destination for each airplane (routing around collisions, of course). He wrote the program that figured out the distance and direction. He said he used the spherical geometry equations straight out if a textbook and they worked perfectly. Obviously, they did much qa, and the system has been in use for decades, many planes arrive where they intended to go daily. If the earth was flat, the equations would be wrong and the pilots would not find an airport where the software sent them. The longer the route, the more the difference.

You can do this yourself, actually. Do the spherical trig math to calculate the distance between two cities, for Tom Bishop, make that two cities on the same land mass, perhaps Beijing and Madrid. For some reason, Tom Bishop thinks gps doesn't work over water. The RE 3d trig answer will match google maps, airline schedule, time/speed/distance of airliner flight, lat/long per wikipedia, etc, and no evidence at all for the FE distance calculation, whatever that might be.

Find a discrepancy between any RE info sources or the math calculations and prove FE! I will be your disciple. And I will make a lot better video than the one you just posted. His production values, scripting, delivery, etc is just bad regardless of the truth of his content. FYI, this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does. People are more likely to believe well made videos, at least most people. Perhaps FEs perceive truth in amateurish, clearly non-expert videos.

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.

[stack]

The outbound versus inbound, in a straight line, would be the same. How might a round earth cause a mis-calculation making each different?

[Tumeni]

Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth?

No. If that were the case, planes would routinely and consistently arrive early or late, rather than the odd few exhibiting an anomalous time.

[GoldCashew]

I told my software engineer friend about FE. He told me he was the programmer who wrote the routing software for the Canadian Air Traffic Control System. The US uses airways, set routes like interstates. The Canadians wanted to route their planes straight from departure airport straight to the destination for each airplane (routing around collisions, of course). He wrote the program that figured out the distance and direction. He said he used the spherical geometry equations straight out if a textbook and they worked perfectly. Obviously, they did much qa, and the system has been in use for decades, many planes arrive where they intended to go daily. If the earth was flat, the equations would be wrong and the pilots would not find an airport where the software sent them. The longer the route, the more the difference.

You can do this yourself, actually. Do the spherical trig math to calculate the distance between two cities, for Tom Bishop, make that two cities on the same land mass, perhaps Beijing and Madrid. For some reason, Tom Bishop thinks gps doesn't work over water. The RE 3d trig answer will match google maps, airline schedule, time/speed/distance of airliner flight, lat/long per wikipedia, etc, and no evidence at all for the FE distance calculation, whatever that might be.

Find a discrepancy between any RE info sources or the math calculations and prove FE! I will be your disciple. And I will make a lot better video than the one you just posted. His production values, scripting, delivery, etc is just bad regardless of the truth of his content. FYI, this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does. People are more likely to believe well made videos, at least most people. Perhaps FEs perceive truth in amateurish, clearly non-expert videos.

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.

Pre-COVID I used to fly long haul flights from Chicago to Hong Kong and back. And from Chicago to Europe and back for business. I am always amazed at how precise some of these flights come in to landing to their planned arrival times, sometimes within minutes. For 14-16 hour or 7-8 hour long haul flights it's pretty impressive.   

I think that saying "no one knowing when it will eventually land" is a bit of a stretch and an exaggeration. A plane might land a little late or a little early (and a Captain will generally make such an announcement if there is an expected delay or an early arrival). But, it's not like people on an airplane suddenly panic and don't generally know when their plane will eventually land.

Sometimes when I plan a trip in my car with GPS as an aid, I might be a little late or early to my destination (perhaps due to a rain shower, fog, or other unexpected poor weather), but I generally know that I will eventually arrive and it's not worrying to me.

 

[SteelyBob]

[

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.

This has been done to death here n several occasions. Flight times of international services are extremely good evidence for the earth being spherical. A genuinely interested (dare I say zetetic?) sceptical person might, for example, take the average of the outbound and return flight times for a large number of different long haul routes. You could, if you wished, compare planned with actual departure and arrival times to add an extras layer of accuracy and verification.

Most airliners cruise at pretty much the same speed - around M0.75 give or take, which is around 500mph true air speed at 40,000. If you subtract 30 mins from each flight time to allow for take off and landing etc, and then work out the approximate distance based on the remaining time and 500mph, you’ll have a grid of estimated distances between major cities all over the earth.

The question, then, is: is there some way of arranging these cities on a blank page such that the distances between them are roughly coherent?

You will find that the answer is ‘no’. The only way you’ll be able to make the distances work is by doing it on a sphere.

I would say that is strong evidence for a round earth. Others might say ‘anomalous winds’, despite the obvious absurdity. What do you think?

[Gonzo]

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?

[SimonC]

Yes  - to scheduled times.

[stack]

Off the top of my head, things that can negatively or positively affect flight times:
- Weather, re-routing around, jetstreams
- Late arriving aircraft
- Waiting for connecting passengers/baggage
- Mechanical
- Traffic
- Waiting on crew
- Route changes

All in all, pretty complex...

[Gonzo]

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.

[SteelyBob]

Yes  - to scheduled times.

Following on from my last post, let's take an example. You can fly with Qantas from Perth to Johannesburg direct. It takes 9:55 hours from Johannesburg, and 11:15 hours travelling from Perth. As per my suggestion, let's split the difference and call it 10:35 hours on average. Now allow 30 mins for arrival and departure, so 10:05. The jet will average around 500mph, so that's a touch over 5000 miles.

The round earth great circle distance between those two places comes in at just under 5200 miles, so the estimate is pretty good on that basis.

Now take a look at, for example, the monopole FET map. According to the wiki, the diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. What would you say is the distance between Perth and Johannesburg on that map? I'd say roughly 80% of the radius maybe? So about 10,000 miles?

So our aircraft is going to have to fly at roughly twice the speed. We know there aren't any supersonic airliners anymore, so what does that leave us? Either magic 'anomalous winds' that blow at 500mph in both directions or the map is hopelessly wrong?

The existence of that flight alone should be enough to completely falsify the monopole FET map. Would you agree?

[stack]

They have never convinced even one flat earther to believe the Lies.

Not one flat earther has convinced a glober that the Earth is flat. Touche.

No one has seen the curvature of the earth.

Au contraire mon frère...Capt. James T Kirk has...

In this exclusive excerpt from William Shatner’s new book, “Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder,” the “Star Trek” actor reflects on his voyage into space on Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space shuttle on Oct. 13, 2021.

"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her."
    - William Shatner

[SimonC]

They have never convinced even one flat earther to believe the Lies.

Not one flat earther has convinced a glober that the Earth is flat. Touche.

No one has seen the curvature of the earth.

Au contraire mon frère...Capt. James T Kirk has...

In this exclusive excerpt from William Shatner’s new book, “Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder,” the “Star Trek” actor reflects on his voyage into space on Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space shuttle on Oct. 13, 2021.

"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her."
    - William Shatner

Thats obviously conclusive then he is obviously having flashbacks to an earlier life. 

On a similar note it amazes me how many globalists refer to the sun as 'rising' and 'setting' in the sky. Sorry to spoil the party but scientifically it doesn't rise or set. According to you we orbit it therefore it cannot 'rise'.