[inquisitive]

Read this:

https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2013/ANIWG01/ANIWG01P04.pdf

[inquisitive]

Does it stem from this?

They do not even bother posting fake real time data of FR24 for these supposed AU to SA flights, so the claim gubment cannot fake any of it, or even all of it, at the exact same time, is just nonsense.

Which was confirmed by SteelyBob.

No real-time data.

Which means there are no real-time flights taking place at the time where real-time data is not posted.

However:

Aireon LLC is a joint venture between NAV CANADA and Iridium to finance, develop, deploy and operate a global solution for tracking and monitoring aircraft anywhere in the world by using spacebased ADS-B receivers

[Gonzo]

Quite.

The fact that FR24 doesn't present ADS-B location data there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means they've made a commercial decision not to pay for it.

I see the data as part of my job, certainly from flights over the N. Atlantic.

[Action80]

Quite.

The fact that FR24 doesn't present ADS-B location data there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means they've made a commercial decision not to pay for it.

I see the data as part of my job, certainly from flights over the N. Atlantic.

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

[SteelyBob]

Quite.

The fact that FR24 doesn't present ADS-B location data there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means they've made a commercial decision not to pay for it.

I see the data as part of my job, certainly from flights over the N. Atlantic.

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

Do you know what a transponder is?

[inquisitive]

Quite.

The fact that FR24 doesn't present ADS-B location data there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means they've made a commercial decision not to pay for it.

I see the data as part of my job, certainly from flights over the N. Atlantic.

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

How does GPS work in a flat earth model and received by aircraft far from land?

[Action80]

Do you know what a transponder is?

Yes.

How does GPS work in a flat earth model and received by aircraft far from land?

It may not be present at all, as no significant changes to routes commonly used for hundreds of years have occurred.

LORAN routes are still in use, for instance.

There are certainly satellites at high altitudes overhead, but they are not really necessary for terrestrial navigation.

[Gonzo]

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

Can you explain how you think ground-based transponders would interfere with or plot false tracks of aircraft over the ocean? Where's the evidence for them performing the same functions (same functions as what? Transponders in aircraft?

Oh no, I have access to global data, perhaps I wasn't clear. It's just not my direct job. I've been working with ADS-B for over ten years. I actually represent my country on European and global working groups on the subject. A group of us was discussing ADS-B accuracy in the SE Pacific only last week on an MS Teams call.

It's so tempting to sit in ignorance and say 'I don't know, therefore I can claim it's all made up/fake/government interference', isn't it?

As for 'some internet jockey', yeah not really. My name is Adam Spink, you can find me pretty easily on Twitter or Instagram. You know where I work. I've even written a few blog posts for my employer at NATS.aero/blog. I use the same forum username on the Professional Pilot Rumour Network (mainly sticking the the ATC Issues forum) where you'll find my posts, and the Flyer Magazine General Aviation forum, where my username is GonzoEGLL. Nice to meet you.

No significant changes to routes commonly used for hundreds of years have occurred

Sorry, you'll definitely have to expand on this one.

[stack]

LORAN routes are still in use, for instance.

Funny, Loran routes utilize great circle navigation...

By the mid-1960s, units with some transistorization were becoming more common, and a chain was set up in Vietnam to support the United States' war efforts there. A number of commercial airline operators experimented with the system as well, using it for navigation on the great circle route between North America and Europe. However, inertial platforms ultimately became more common in this role.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C

[Iceman]

no significant changes to routes commonly used for hundreds of years have occurred.

In a discussion about air travel, you’re talking about routes used for hundreds of years?

[Tom Bishop]

In-flight diversions are a lot more complex than just diverting to the ‘nearest airport’, as some (including the author of that ‘book’) seem to think.

Most international airlines use a service based in Phoenix, AZ called MedLink MedAire. This is a 24/7 operation staffed by ER doctors which is the first port of call for aircraft in the air when there’s a sick passenger.
They will advise the airline on the best course of action.
Factors that need to be considered in choosing a diversion airport:
•   If it’s a medical diversion, is the patient stable? Is it every second counts?
•   Medical care facilities at the airport, and wider area
•   Runway length, runway strength, taxiway strength, anticipated aircraft landing weight
•   Weather now and forecast
•   Air traffic control provision
•   Airport fire fighting and rescue cover
•   Fuel and aircraft servicing provision (hydraulic fuel, lubricants, steps to reach the aircraft, baggage facilities, towing capability)
•   Does the airline have contracts in place with companies at the proposed diversion airport?
•   Engineer/mechanic provision
•   Flight crew duty hours
•   Relief crew position
•   Passenger services (immigration/customs)
•   Accommodation for crew and passengers
•   Distance from aircraft (to be comfortable for passengers, most airliners require about 10nm for every 3000ft of altitude. The descent rate could be increased somewhat if it was an emergency, but you’re still talking nearly 100nm from 35,000ft).
•   Passengers on board (do they need visas to land at proposed diversion? Will they be kept on board for hours while the situation is sorted out?).
•   Are there vulnerable passengers on board (i.e. people whom one country would be very keen to get their hands on? (for example the relatively recent incident over Belarus)) .
•   Political concerns (i.e. A US flight might go another 20-30nm to avoid diverting to Iran and making it to UAE).
These are factors I have just come up with, and no doubt there are many more to be considered.

To second guess why a crew made a decision to divert to a particular airport with no knowledge of most of these factors (as the 'book' does) is naive in the extreme.

Happy to answer any questions on the above, if I can!

You posted a bunch of reasons why flights might be diverted, but zero reasons for why they would be diverted to a place that would make a straight line between the destinations on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

[inquisitive]

In-flight diversions are a lot more complex than just diverting to the ‘nearest airport’, as some (including the author of that ‘book’) seem to think.

Most international airlines use a service based in Phoenix, AZ called MedLink MedAire. This is a 24/7 operation staffed by ER doctors which is the first port of call for aircraft in the air when there’s a sick passenger.
They will advise the airline on the best course of action.
Factors that need to be considered in choosing a diversion airport:
•   If it’s a medical diversion, is the patient stable? Is it every second counts?
•   Medical care facilities at the airport, and wider area
•   Runway length, runway strength, taxiway strength, anticipated aircraft landing weight
•   Weather now and forecast
•   Air traffic control provision
•   Airport fire fighting and rescue cover
•   Fuel and aircraft servicing provision (hydraulic fuel, lubricants, steps to reach the aircraft, baggage facilities, towing capability)
•   Does the airline have contracts in place with companies at the proposed diversion airport?
•   Engineer/mechanic provision
•   Flight crew duty hours
•   Relief crew position
•   Passenger services (immigration/customs)
•   Accommodation for crew and passengers
•   Distance from aircraft (to be comfortable for passengers, most airliners require about 10nm for every 3000ft of altitude. The descent rate could be increased somewhat if it was an emergency, but you’re still talking nearly 100nm from 35,000ft).
•   Passengers on board (do they need visas to land at proposed diversion? Will they be kept on board for hours while the situation is sorted out?).
•   Are there vulnerable passengers on board (i.e. people whom one country would be very keen to get their hands on? (for example the relatively recent incident over Belarus)) .
•   Political concerns (i.e. A US flight might go another 20-30nm to avoid diverting to Iran and making it to UAE).
These are factors I have just come up with, and no doubt there are many more to be considered.

To second guess why a crew made a decision to divert to a particular airport with no knowledge of most of these factors (as the 'book' does) is naive in the extreme.

Happy to answer any questions on the above, if I can!

You posted a bunch of reasons why flights might be diverted, but zero reasons for why they would be diverted to a place that would make a straight line between the destinations on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

Please provide a link to an/the agreed Flat Earth Azimuthal map to discuss.

[DuncanDoenitz]

In-flight diversions are a lot more complex than just diverting to the ‘nearest airport’, as some (including the author of that ‘book’) seem to think.

Most international airlines use a service based in Phoenix, AZ called MedLink MedAire. This is a 24/7 operation staffed by ER doctors which is the first port of call for aircraft in the air when there’s a sick passenger.
They will advise the airline on the best course of action.
Factors that need to be considered in choosing a diversion airport:
•   If it’s a medical diversion, is the patient stable? Is it every second counts?
•   Medical care facilities at the airport, and wider area
•   Runway length, runway strength, taxiway strength, anticipated aircraft landing weight
•   Weather now and forecast
•   Air traffic control provision
•   Airport fire fighting and rescue cover
•   Fuel and aircraft servicing provision (hydraulic fuel, lubricants, steps to reach the aircraft, baggage facilities, towing capability)
•   Does the airline have contracts in place with companies at the proposed diversion airport?
•   Engineer/mechanic provision
•   Flight crew duty hours
•   Relief crew position
•   Passenger services (immigration/customs)
•   Accommodation for crew and passengers
•   Distance from aircraft (to be comfortable for passengers, most airliners require about 10nm for every 3000ft of altitude. The descent rate could be increased somewhat if it was an emergency, but you’re still talking nearly 100nm from 35,000ft).
•   Passengers on board (do they need visas to land at proposed diversion? Will they be kept on board for hours while the situation is sorted out?).
•   Are there vulnerable passengers on board (i.e. people whom one country would be very keen to get their hands on? (for example the relatively recent incident over Belarus)) .
•   Political concerns (i.e. A US flight might go another 20-30nm to avoid diverting to Iran and making it to UAE).
These are factors I have just come up with, and no doubt there are many more to be considered.

To second guess why a crew made a decision to divert to a particular airport with no knowledge of most of these factors (as the 'book' does) is naive in the extreme.

Happy to answer any questions on the above, if I can!

You posted a bunch of reasons why flights might be diverted, but zero reasons for why they would be diverted to a place that would make a straight line between the destinations on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

You've completely failed to comprehend Gonzo's list. This is not a "bunch of reasons why a flight might be diverted".  It's a (non-exhaustive) list of factors that an aircraft commander must consider when deciding which airport he/she should divert to; his point is that it will not necessarily be the nearest, or more obvious to a layman. 

Added to that, a close-to great-circle flightpath, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with a polar azimuthal flat-world map. 

[Tom Bishop]

You posted a bunch of reasons why flights might be diverted, but zero reasons for why they would be diverted to a place that would make a straight line between the destinations on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

You've completely failed to comprehend Gonzo's list. This is not a "bunch of reasons why a flight might be diverted".  It's a (non-exhaustive) list of factors that an aircraft commander must consider when deciding which airport he/she should divert to; his point is that it will not necessarily be the nearest, or more obvious to a layman. 

Added to that, a close-to great-circle flightpath, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with a polar azimuthal flat-world map.

None of that explains why the flights make emergency landings in spots that make straight line paths on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

[inquisitive]

You posted a bunch of reasons why flights might be diverted, but zero reasons for why they would be diverted to a place that would make a straight line between the destinations on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

You've completely failed to comprehend Gonzo's list. This is not a "bunch of reasons why a flight might be diverted".  It's a (non-exhaustive) list of factors that an aircraft commander must consider when deciding which airport he/she should divert to; his point is that it will not necessarily be the nearest, or more obvious to a layman. 

Added to that, a close-to great-circle flightpath, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with a polar azimuthal flat-world map.

None of that explains why the flights make emergency landings in spots that make straight line paths on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

Please provide a link to a agreed Flat Earth Azimuthal map so we can check.

[Iceman]

Ah yes, the ol’ I don’t believe in the globe because a few things line up with this map which I also don’t believe in argument.

The best defense of the bi-polar model is…the monopole map?

[Gonzo]

In-flight diversions are a lot more complex than just diverting to the ‘nearest airport’, as some (including the author of that ‘book’) seem to think.

Most international airlines use a service based in Phoenix, AZ called MedLink MedAire. This is a 24/7 operation staffed by ER doctors which is the first port of call for aircraft in the air when there’s a sick passenger.
They will advise the airline on the best course of action.
Factors that need to be considered in choosing a diversion airport:
•   If it’s a medical diversion, is the patient stable? Is it every second counts?
•   Medical care facilities at the airport, and wider area
•   Runway length, runway strength, taxiway strength, anticipated aircraft landing weight
•   Weather now and forecast
•   Air traffic control provision
•   Airport fire fighting and rescue cover
•   Fuel and aircraft servicing provision (hydraulic fuel, lubricants, steps to reach the aircraft, baggage facilities, towing capability)
•   Does the airline have contracts in place with companies at the proposed diversion airport?
•   Engineer/mechanic provision
•   Flight crew duty hours
•   Relief crew position
•   Passenger services (immigration/customs)
•   Accommodation for crew and passengers
•   Distance from aircraft (to be comfortable for passengers, most airliners require about 10nm for every 3000ft of altitude. The descent rate could be increased somewhat if it was an emergency, but you’re still talking nearly 100nm from 35,000ft).
•   Passengers on board (do they need visas to land at proposed diversion? Will they be kept on board for hours while the situation is sorted out?).
•   Are there vulnerable passengers on board (i.e. people whom one country would be very keen to get their hands on? (for example the relatively recent incident over Belarus)) .
•   Political concerns (i.e. A US flight might go another 20-30nm to avoid diverting to Iran and making it to UAE).
These are factors I have just come up with, and no doubt there are many more to be considered.

To second guess why a crew made a decision to divert to a particular airport with no knowledge of most of these factors (as the 'book' does) is naive in the extreme.

Happy to answer any questions on the above, if I can!

You posted a bunch of reasons why flights might be diverted, but zero reasons for why they would be diverted to a place that would make a straight line between the destinations on a Flat Earth Azimuthal map.

No Tom.

I posted a non-exhaustive list of factors considered when choosing where to divert.

That ‘book’ claims that because a flight diverted to airport A instead of airport B, when it clearly (in the author’ mind) should have gone to airport B, that this is evidence of flat earth. No. It’s merely evidence that the flight diverted to airport A.

[Action80]

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

Can you explain how you think ground-based transponders would interfere with or plot false tracks of aircraft over the ocean?

I never said transponders are interfering with or plotting false tracking for aircraft. I'm not even going to entertain your obvious troll.

I don't care what your name is, I don't care where you are from, and I don't believe a single word you typed here on this thread.

I'm done responding to you.

Sorry, you'll definitely have to expand on this one.
[/quote]

[Action80]

LORAN routes are still in use, for instance.

Funny, Loran routes utilize great circle navigation...

By the mid-1960s, units with some transistorization were becoming more common, and a chain was set up in Vietnam to support the United States' war efforts there. A number of commercial airline operators experimented with the system as well, using it for navigation on the great circle route between North America and Europe. However, inertial platforms ultimately became more common in this role.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C

Funny, no they don't. They can write anything they want to support the narrative.

[Gonzo]

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

Can you explain how you think ground-based transponders would interfere with or plot false tracks of aircraft over the ocean?

I never said transponders are interfering with or plotting false tracking for aircraft. I'm not even going to entertain your obvious troll.

I don't care what your name is, I don't care where you are from, and I don't believe a single word you typed here on this thread.

I'm done responding to you.

Sorry, you'll definitely have to expand on this one.

Ok, I must be mistaken then. In your view, what are these ground based transponders doing?