Questions from a pilot.

I'm new here and as a commercial pilot fascinated with your flat earth concept.  I see evidence of a round earth everyday I'm at work and have many questions for the FEers.  I have flown around the world many times and in doing so have seen many wonderful examples of Mother Nature and her quite round earth.

One of the most striking things I witness, and you can too, is terminator.  Nothing to do with the movie.  Terminator is the scientific term used to describe the narrow transition of light between day and night and is, essentially, earth's shadow being cast into the upper atmosphere and out into space.  Terminator is visible at very high altitude during sunset when facing east with the sun directly behind you and is evident for about 1 minute until the plane flies into earth's shadow and "night".  I can see earth's shadow casting off into the higher atmosphere.  How would a flat earth cause this phenomenon?

How does the FE community explain earth's shadow and terminator?

Additionally, earth's horizon is about 200 miles from the plane at cruising altitude..usually 40,000'+.  Therefore I cannot see anything further than 200 miles and the aircraft's equipment cannot "see" beyond this either.  VHF radios are great but only effective if there is no obstruction between me and the guy on the other end.  "Line of Sight".  Explain why the effective maximum distance of my radio is about 200 miles, the horizon, when talking to a ground based receiver/transmitter but if I'm talking to another pilot near my altitude I can reach him at a distance of 300 miles or more.  He's above my horizon.

I have many more questions.....

welcome from a fellow round earther. i to would like to hear the answers to this question but i know the 1st responses you will get from flat earthers are, oh look another pilot. or as a pilot you would say that you are probably part of the conspiracy.

Ooh, a real life pilot? Stick him with the others.

Anyway, it's just a perspective effect caused by the aetheric whirlpool.

I'm not part of any conspiracy...just a guy going to work to provide a happy life for me and for me my Round Earth family.  We all have a job, right?

Another question:  Modern aircraft navigate almost entirely with GPS.  I've read on this forum that FEers claim GPS is not a satellite based system but a land based one using tower signals.  If this is true how do we very accurately navigate with our GPS over vast oceans for hours at a time and find airports in remote places.  Where are these "GPS towers"?   

...and, above about 45,000 one can begin to see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes.  No lense distortion here.  It's easy to see from the cockpit because we have a 180 degree view.  Cabin windows are too narrow to see enough of the horizon to make out the curvature.  I have seen the earth's curvature with my own eyes for many years.  How is this possible if the earth is flat?

If the earth is flat, who cares if you are in the middle of an ocean? You still have line of sight for communications with a ground based triangulation system. If anything your argument only strengthens the flat earth position.

I'm not part of any conspiracy...just a guy going to work to provide a happy life for me and for me my Round Earth family.  We all have a job, right?

Another question:  Modern aircraft navigate almost entirely with GPS.  I've read on this forum that FEers claim GPS is not a satellite based system but a land based one using tower signals.  If this is true how do we very accurately navigate with our GPS over vast oceans for hours at a time and find airports in remote places.  Where are these "GPS towers"?

When GPS came out the US Military already had a world-wide network of navigational towers called the LORAN system. They are located at military bases and covered most of the civilized world.



In addition, on the LORAN Wiki page scroll down to the "See Also" section. The Russians have a counterpart to LORAN which uses similar technologies. The British also have a counterpart to LORAN.

Look at the British Decca system, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_Navigator_System

"After the end of World War II the Decca Navigator Co. Ltd. was formed (1945) and the system expanded rapidly, particularly in areas of British influence; at its peak it was deployed in many of the world's major shipping areas."

There we go, evidence that there are navigational systems which cover many of the worlds major shipping areas. Like the US, the British also deployed their navigational towers world-wide:

"Other chains were established in Japan (6 chains); Namibia and South Africa (5 chains); India and Bangladesh (4 chains); Canada (4 chains around Newfoundland and Nova Scotia); North-West Australia (2 chains); the Persian Gulf (1 chain with stations in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and a second chain in the north of the Gulf with stations in Iran) and the Bahamas (1 chain). Four chains were planned for Nigeria but only 2 chains were built and these did not enter into public service. Two chains in Vietnam were used during the Vietnam War for helicopter navigation, with limited success. During the Cold War period, following WWII, the R.A.F. established a confidential chain in Germany. The Master station was in Bad Iburg near Osnabrück and there were two Slaves. The purpose of this chain was to provide accurate air navigation for the corridor between Western Germany and Berlin in the event that a mass evacuation of allied personnel may be required. In order to maintain secrecy, frequencies were changed at irregular intervals."

So yes, there are a lot of these towers out there, and these are only the unclassified ones we're told about. It is also suggested in the LORAN Wiki that the British have access to LORAN technology, specifically.

As we can see, a world-wide system of navigational towers is absolutely possible -- especially seeing as one already exists.

OK, you claim the navigation system works with line of site across thousands of miles of ocean.  Then explain my earlier question about VHF radio and line of sight.  I can talk to another pilot 300+ miles away because he is above my horizon but why can't I talk to a ground based radio more than 200 miles away?  He is over the horizon.

LORAN system was phased out many years ago.  We don't use LORAN any more and aircraft aren't even equipped with LORAN receivers either.  I used LORAN...last time about 1990... and it was a crude, but effective, way to get from point A to point B.  And we didn't use LORAN to find Hawaii.  Sure, LORAN worked over water but not far from shore.  LORAN was good for Joe 6-pack in his bass boat...worked great for his needs but was useless far off shore as your map supports.

VLF Omega nav was introduced as a means of long range oceanic navigation using Very Low Frequency transmitters whose signal could reach across oceans and beneath the surface too.  This system was partly developed as a means to provide navy submarines a navigation tool and eventually was incorporated into civil aviation.  VLF Omega is also a defunct system and has been for many years.  Modern aircraft don't carry VLF Omega receivers, LORAN receivers, or a sextant.  Your LORAN argument is moot.

And another...

Not sure about your explanation of geo-stationary satellites used for weather forecasting.  I use the images taken from these satellites to plan my flight.  How are these images made if not from a satellite based camera?  These are not random pictures.  As I fly across the country or ocean I encounter the same weather as depicted on the graphic.

Bilbo

On another thread, I pointed out the scheduled flight times from Australia to Argentina of 11hrs non-stop, which given the distance between the two places on a flat-earth map, appears to be impossible without supersonic flight.

Mr Bishop handwaved this objection away, simply saying that many flights are delayed - thus inferring that this is the sort of thing that would go un-noticed.

Would you care to comment on this ?

Also - would you care to comment on the maximum range of commercial aircraft without refuelling.

Twang..

I believe the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world is JFK-Hong Kong.  About 15 hours in a Boeing 777-ER and passes directly over the North Pole. This is at about the current limit of commercial aircraft endurance. 

A flight from Australia to South America, according to the FE map, would also cross the North Pole and would be close to twice this distance....and much farther if crossing the Pacific Ocean which is exactly the way it would be done. 

OK, you claim the navigation system works with line of site across thousands of miles of ocean.  Then explain my earlier question about VHF radio and line of sight.  I can talk to another pilot 300+ miles away because he is above my horizon but why can't I talk to a ground based radio more than 200 miles away?  He is over the horizon.

FM radio and VHF operate by line of sight and are limited by the thickness of the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is thicker nearer to the earth than higher altitudes, one can see bodies in the upper altitudes clearer than bodies at lower altitudes.

LORAN system was phased out many years ago.  We don't use LORAN any more and aircraft aren't even equipped with LORAN receivers either.  I used LORAN...last time about 1990... and it was a crude, but effective, way to get from point A to point B.  And we didn't use LORAN to find Hawaii.  Sure, LORAN worked over water but not far from shore.  LORAN was good for Joe 6-pack in his bass boat...worked great for his needs but was useless far off shore as your map supports.

Modern aircraft don't carry VLF Omega receivers, LORAN receivers, or a sextant.  Your LORAN argument is moot.

Before LORAN was allegedly decommissioned the latest version, eLoran, claimed to be inter-operable with GPS receivers. See this website:

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571

Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”

Twang..

I believe the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world is JFK-Hong Kong.  About 15 hours in a Boeing 777-ER and passes directly over the North Pole. This is at about the current limit of commercial aircraft endurance. 

A flight from Australia to South America, according to the FE map, would also cross the North Pole and would be close to twice this distance....and much farther if crossing the Pacific Ocean which is exactly the way it would be done.

Finally, one of the first people on this thread to start making sense apart from Twang.

Quote from: Bilbobaggins on December 12, 2012, 08:46:16 AM

Twang..

I believe the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world is JFK-Hong Kong.  About 15 hours in a Boeing 777-ER and passes directly over the North Pole. This is at about the current limit of commercial aircraft endurance. 

A flight from Australia to South America, according to the FE map, would also cross the North Pole and would be close to twice this distance....and much farther if crossing the Pacific Ocean which is exactly the way it would be done.

Finally, one of the first people on this thread to start making sense apart from Twang.

Actually that flight should go over the South Pole on a round earth, not the Pacific, but we won't split hairs because its all imaginary anyway. However there are no flights over Antarctica at all. None. Even South Africa to New Zealand doesn't go that way. Its as fishy as a Ellen MacArthur's knickers.

Quote from: PiemanFiddy on December 12, 2012, 10:30:51 AM

Quote from: Bilbobaggins on December 12, 2012, 08:46:16 AM

Twang..

I believe the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world is JFK-Hong Kong.  About 15 hours in a Boeing 777-ER and passes directly over the North Pole. This is at about the current limit of commercial aircraft endurance. 

A flight from Australia to South America, according to the FE map, would also cross the North Pole and would be close to twice this distance....and much farther if crossing the Pacific Ocean which is exactly the way it would be done.

Finally, one of the first people on this thread to start making sense apart from Twang.

Actually that flight should go over the South Pole on a round earth, not the Pacific, but we won't split hairs because its all imaginary anyway. However there are no flights over Antarctica at all. None. Even South Africa to New Zealand doesn't go that way. Its as fishy as a Ellen MacArthur's knickers.

It's only imaginary because it debunks your theory.

Plenty of flights go over the North Pole. Find me a scheduled flight that goes over this South Pole of yours. The one we say doesn't exist.

Plenty of flights go over the North Pole. Find me a scheduled flight that goes over this South Pole of yours. The one we say doesn't exist.

Why should I? Why should he?

All you'll do is counter it with another bs theory. There's no winning in a debate with you people.

Well, its just interesting as all. All those flights over the North Pole, and not one commercial service goes over Antarctica.

It does kind of back our point of view and make yours seem awkward.

Well, its just interesting as all. All those flights over the North Pole, and not one commercial service goes over Antarctica.

It does kind of back our point of view and make yours seem awkward.

I'll leave it to the professionals.

Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2012, 10:47:35 AM

Well, its just interesting as all. All those flights over the North Pole, and not one commercial service goes over Antarctica.

It does kind of back our point of view and make yours seem awkward.

I'll leave it to the professionals.

I thought as much. What is it you say?

Checkmate.

Quote from: PiemanFiddy on December 12, 2012, 10:48:34 AM

Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2012, 10:47:35 AM

Well, its just interesting as all. All those flights over the North Pole, and not one commercial service goes over Antarctica.

It does kind of back our point of view and make yours seem awkward.

I'll leave it to the professionals.

I thought as much. What is it you say?

Checkmate.

I don't suppose it would matter either way if a professional to you people is just another conspiracy theorist.

Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2012, 10:49:33 AM

Quote from: PiemanFiddy on December 12, 2012, 10:48:34 AM

Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2012, 10:47:35 AM

Well, its just interesting as all. All those flights over the North Pole, and not one commercial service goes over Antarctica.

It does kind of back our point of view and make yours seem awkward.

I'll leave it to the professionals.

I thought as much. What is it you say?

Checkmate.

I don't suppose it would matter either way if a professional to you people is just another conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, you've no more answers. You don't get to have the last word.

Quote from: PiemanFiddy on December 12, 2012, 10:53:09 AM

Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2012, 10:49:33 AM

Quote from: PiemanFiddy on December 12, 2012, 10:48:34 AM

Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2012, 10:47:35 AM

Well, its just interesting as all. All those flights over the North Pole, and not one commercial service goes over Antarctica.

It does kind of back our point of view and make yours seem awkward.

I'll leave it to the professionals.

I thought as much. What is it you say?

Checkmate.

I don't suppose it would matter either way if a professional to you people is just another conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, you've no more answers. You don't get to have the last word.

You're right, no Round Earther can ever have the answers.
You can have the last word too, as long as it's related to Pie or Youtube.

The reason there are no scheduled commercial flights across the South Pole, between Sydney and Rio say, is that the market is very small and no airliner is currently certified to fly south of the 70th parallel.  This is due to magnetic pole anomolies, navigation and most important the lack of a a suitable alternate airport for many hours during the flight.   The market for this route is small but if/when the need arises we will see commercial service crossing the South pole.  The Boeing 787 is expected to be the first type to make this sort of flight. 

The North Pole crossing has some similarities with the magnetic pole and navigation obstacles.  The need to operate in the North Pole region is high, most of the world's population live in the N. Hemisphere, so the technical and certification issues were addressed.  Also, there are plenty of suitable alternate airports within 2 or 3 hours of the route if the need arose.

Tom, VHF radio waves don't care about air density.  Also, eLORAN is, according to your sited article, an effort to revive an antiquated LORAN system that virtually no one would use.  At least that's what your article says.  No one in my industry would use eLORAN anyway....it's a Coast Guard/boat thing.

This is due to magnetic pole anomolies, navigation and most important the lack of a a suitable alternate airport for many hours during the flight.

And I'm sure there are plenty more alternative airports in the middle of the ocean.

no airliner is currently certified to fly south of the 70th parallel. 

This I knew. And its because they don't want any of them flying any where near the edge. Military personnel only. The whole thing stinks.

As for Airports there are 2 x 3 km runways at McMurdo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Field

But they are busy hoaxing the Mars missions there (see my other thread) so there is no way flights are going any where near that.

Quote from: Bilbobaggins on December 12, 2012, 11:13:06 AM

no airliner is currently certified to fly south of the 70th parallel. 

This I knew. And its because they don't want any of them flying any where near the edge. Military personnel only. The whole thing stinks.

As for Airports there are 2 x 3 km runways at McMurdo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Field

But they are busy hoaxing the Mars missions there (see my other thread) so there is no way flights are going any where near that.

holy hell have you looked at a map?   There is simply only a few routes that would need routing over the S pole and there is no demand for these routes which have no alternatitaves should there be an emergency.  Contrast that to pacific or Atlantic routes that do have viable alternatives. 

Also, it isn't that no plane Can fly below the 70th its that the navigation systems don't work reliably that far south.  We have similar issues with INS systems up at the North Pole in that they can't boot up properly.  If you want to boat yourself and a helicopter down to the South Pole and fly around KNOCK YOURSELF OUT.  There won't be any ice wall guards there to stop you.

Now navigation systems don't work properly at the polls? Keep digging round earthers. You are just loading me up with every rebuttal I'll ever need.

It's not that the nav systems don't work near the poles, they do work there.  It's the geometry and convergence of the lines of longitude at the poles that causes the trouble.  One degree of Longitude is equal to 60 nautical miles at the equator (in the round earth world) As these lines near the poles, both North and South, they converge until all meeting in one spot...at the pole.  When these lines are so close together that it causes errors in the navigation system it's easier for the system to default to Dead Reckoning mode and to fly in a fixed direction until passing the pole and the longitude diverges enough for the normal nav system to continue on the other side.  This process can take up to an hour.

The identical situation happens at both the North and the South poles.

As I mentioned, much effort has gone into coming up with certifiable navigation systems to compensate for trans N. Pole flights due to the high demand.  One day we will have a similar system in place for crossing the South Pole when there is suitable demand to make the economic investment practical. 

Also, McMurdo station is a runway cut into the Antarctic ice.  It is not a paved runway and no commercial airliner could use this type of surface to land and to take off.  Military aircraft can and do do it regularly.  McMurdo will never be considered a suitable alternate landing site for commercial ops.  Perhaps for a crash landing but this is not how aviation thinks.

I've enjoyed this banter.  Only discovered your site 24 hours ago...very amusing.  Still trying to determine if the site is satire..like a geography version of  "The Onion".  Nevertheless I will play along.

 

Now navigation systems don't work properly at the polls? Keep digging round earthers. You are just loading me up with every rebuttal I'll ever need.

Are you saying that there are no navigational concerns near the north pole in FET?

Twang..

I believe the longest scheduled commercial flight in the world is JFK-Hong Kong.  About 15 hours in a Boeing 777-ER and passes directly over the North Pole. This is at about the current limit of commercial aircraft endurance. 

A flight from Australia to South America, according to the FE map, would also cross the North Pole and would be close to twice this distance....and much farther if crossing the Pacific Ocean which is exactly the way it would be done.

Thanks - but what I was getting at was how far a commercial airliner can fly without refuelling.  According to the FE model, Sydney to Buenos Aires is about 27,000km if you fly over the North Pole, and something like ~45,000km if you stick to the latitudes that the 'round earth believing' pilots would expect to stick to.  Are ranges like this possible non-stop, because I thought they could only do about 15-20,000km in one go ?