On Friday, 8 December 2017 15:03:56 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/12/2017 11:40, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:38:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/12/17 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
Radar had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it.

Wrong. Pre war and pre radar aircraft were limited to flight corridors
for safety.

So are commercial aircraft.


Light aircraft aren't generally limited to corridors only commercial
aircraft.

Yes I know.


Light aircraft still fly by sight most of the time.

Yep.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome
the rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.

Ah - right. All the hills round your way only go downhill.

Well gravity certainly always seem to work downhill around here. What a
thicko.
Tell me something bert. Have you never pulled/pushed something yourself?
Obviously not a wheelbarrow, because that would be DIY. But perhaps a
pram? But then perhaps not. Too dangerous.

Do try not to make yourself look so stupid. It's painful to see in a
grown man/woman.
(Musn't make gender assumptions).
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 07/12/17 21:34, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
* bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome the
rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.

No, technically it is quite different.

'Rolling resistance' is generally held to be that part of the
resistance to motion that is independent of acceleration or road slopes.


It can be specifically but I was using the term generally.
I hate to say it, but this time the plow**** has by sheer random
accident hit the right keys.



Yes but you have to keep it simple for thicko.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The ability to tow a weight simply requires the vehicle to overcome
the rolling resistance of the load.

Really? No hills round your way?

You are pathetic. The gravitational force down the hill forms part of
the total rolling resistance.

Ah - right. All the hills round your way only go downhill.

Well gravity certainly always seem to work downhill around here. What a
thicko.

Can you then explain how it works to make moving something uphill the same
as on the level, then? I'm sorry there are words with more than four
letters.

Tell me something bert. Have you never pulled/pushed something yourself?
Obviously not a wheelbarrow, because that would be DIY. But perhaps a
pram? But then perhaps not. Too dangerous.

Do try not to make yourself look so stupid.

Is that a 'don't do as I do' type of thing?

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:10:25 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry
wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens



Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did? You won't
see a return journey from it. Hot air balloons did it
quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s. Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and
it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it
will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to
follow routes.

They were allocated routes after some crashes as they didn't follow
routes and flew by eye.

So they didnlt know where the planes were at a specific time

Yes.

because they weren't on radar.

They didnt have long range radar at that time, let alone
any way of seeing which blip was which plane etc either.

That meant that more than one plane could be travelling
in the area at the same altitude and different directions.

So why was that a problem ?

Because they can run into each other, stupid.

They then assigned routes to keep them apart.

exactly.

Nope, you are both mangling the story utterly.

We mostly dont have routes within the country
and just announce where we are going and at
what altitude we are flying and the system
specifys what altitude steps to use in each
direction, like even altitudes in one direction
and odd in another to avoid flying into
someone else at the same altitude.

Radar had nothing to do with it.

It had everything to do with it.

Nope, they didnt have long range ground radar at the time that routes
were introduced and still have routes even now that there is very good
long range ground radar coverage of the higher density areas.

Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS
satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on
radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still
be tracked. The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system,
so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's
just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than
prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in. This will or
so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be
more routes.


Totally wrong.

Not according to those that know about such things.

Fraid so. You two clowns dont have a ****ing
clue and whoever did that doco doesnt either.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:38:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/12/17 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
Radar had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it.

Wrong. Pre war and pre radar aircraft were limited to flight corridors
for safety.

So are commercial aircraft.

Not necessarily anymore, now that INS and GPS ant TCAS
etc all allow trivially easy avoidance of other traffic.

It was different in the days before long range radar.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 20:19:00 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:10:25 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 16:52:46 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 14:55:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/12/2017 13:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 December 2017 09:20:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2017 12:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:48:26 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 29/11/17 17:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 16:54:32 UTC, harry
wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-Royce-Siemens



Well if drone can fly by battery power why can't planes eventually run
on batteries.

They already can. Just not for very long

Solar Impulse 2, did OK


You do know why it flew in the direction it did? You won't
see a return journey from it. Hot air balloons did it
quicker with more passengers.

You do know why planes follow the routes they do don't you ?


Do you think the solar plane followed the same routes as the
airliners?

No, but do you actually know why aircraft tend to follow the same
'path' ?


Some crashes in the '50s. Why do you think they do?

I don;t think I kknow.

There was a program on it a week or so ago.

The reason is radar. ONly 10% of teh earth has radar coverage and
it;s risky lettign a plane go off radar as yuo don;t know where it
will be and can't predict it's exact course, so planes were told to
follow routes.

They were allocated routes after some crashes as they didn't follow
routes and flew by eye.

So they didnlt know where the planes were at a specific time because
they weren't on radar.


That meant that more than one plane could be travelling in the area at
the same altitude and different directions.

So why was that a problem ?

They then assigned routes to keep them apart.

exactly.


Radar had nothing to do with it.

It had everything to do with it.


They still didn't have radar coverage after they introduced the routes.
Radar had nothing to do with it.
routes were a safety thing they could do without radar so they did.
They still have defined routes now even with radar and gps.



Now with more planes havign GPS and with the increased number of GPS
satellites it has now become possible to use just GPS and not rely on
radar, so now planes can travel across the centre of oceans and still
be tracked. The london city airport is rolling out it;s new system,
so you can be in the controll tower anywhere in the world as it's
just a roon with lots of large 4K screesn that take teh place of
windows, yuo can zoon right in on the plane even more so than
prevuious using binoculars to see the planes coming in. This will or
so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be
more routes.


Totally wrong.

Not according to those that know about such things.



Stop reading wiki and look for some facts.

I didn't use wiki there was a program on TV about the new systems coming
in

Which dont involve a tiny number of fixed routes.

and the first in the UK was at london city
airport they have one in brussles IIRC.

You were clearly completely blotto when you 'watched' it, as always.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 08/12/2017 11:40, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 17:38:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/12/17 17:21, whisky-dave wrote:
Radar had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it.

Wrong. Pre war and pre radar aircraft were limited to flight corridors
for safety.

So are commercial aircraft.


Light aircraft aren't generally limited to corridors only commercial
aircraft.

Even commercial aircraft arent anymore.

Light aircraft still fly by sight most of the time.

Thats overstated. And is irrelevant to
running into other aircraft anyway.

On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings. The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

Andy

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of the USA






--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter distance less fuel quicker flight ?

It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to greenland.

On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:48:59 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

So explain it if you understand it better.

whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that. They don't take the shortest route from A-B they
take a route where they can be tracked. Friend flew from gatwick to cacun
on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

The direct route looks remarkably curved on a Mercator (or similar)
projection. Most planes flying a long way fly on a great circle route,
perhaps slightly altered to be near enough to alternative airports
should an engine fail. Especially since they often only have two.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow
wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that. They don't take the shortest route from A-B
they take a route where they can be tracked. Friend flew from gatwick
to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across
the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of
the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter
distance less fuel quicker flight ?

It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to greenland.


Find a globe of the world and find the shortest route using bits of string.
Mercator's projection of the world onto a rectangular map doesn't do
shortest routes.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)? If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:54:58 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)?

why not take the What's your drinking nationality...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372



Take the which If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.

you mean you can't explain why the aircraft 'hugs' the cost and has to stay in a particular corridors .
Can you explain why it's important for an aircraft to be on radar so that other planes know where you are at a point in time and space ?

whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:54:58 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)?

why not take the What's your drinking nationality...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372



Take the which If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.

you mean you can't explain why the aircraft 'hugs' the cost and has to
stay in a particular corridors . Can you explain why it's important for an
aircraft to be on radar so that other planes know where you are at a point
in time and space ?

Because it isn't true. Nowadays commercial planes have transponders
which talk to each other (hence the name), anyway.

--

Roger Hayter

On Friday, 15 December 2017 13:26:46 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:54:58 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)?

why not take the What's your drinking nationality...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372



Take the which If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.

you mean you can't explain why the aircraft 'hugs' the cost and has to
stay in a particular corridors . Can you explain why it's important for an
aircraft to be on radar so that other planes know where you are at a point
in time and space ?

Because it isn't true. Nowadays commercial planes have transponders
which talk to each other (hence the name), anyway.

Did you get that from the TV a week or so ago, most airports still rely on radar NOT GPS.

Air traffic control ATC uses radar NOT GPS.

All commercial aircraft are equipped with transponders (an abbreviation of "transmitter responder"), which automatically transmit a unique four-digit code when they receive a radio signal sent by radar.

These transponders use RADAR NOT GPS.



google it.
do airlines use GPS or radar

Yes, but while GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based. Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map, but this data is not usually shared with air traffic control.

of course things are improving but it's the airports that have to upgrade there;s only 3 that currently have full GPS in use, the most recent being london city airport another I think is Brussels.

In Europe GPS approach aids are still limited to a very limited number of airports and have not yet been widely adapted, despite pilots much preferring them over traditional and inaccurate ground based approach procedures.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-26544554

On 15/12/17 12:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter distance less fuel quicker flight ?

That is the shortest distance. That is going across directly.




It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to greenland.


Buy yourself a globe and a bit of string and measure it





--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

In article 16d6f1db-a6c2-4d8b-bc2e-99639e3ef851
@googlegroups.com, says...

On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:

Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter distance less fuel quicker flight ?

It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to greenland.


Because, as you've already been told, it flies the Great
Circle route. You are used to flat maps that are centred at
a point on the equator but the earth isn't flat.

A Geat Circle map shows the earth as viewed fom a apecific
poin on the globe. If you draw a straight line - ie: the
shortest route - on a Great Circle map you will find that is
doesn't follow what appears to be (but isn'!) the most
direct route on a 'normal' map.

This is a Great Circle map:

http://www.mapability.com/ei8ic/maps/gcm-9k1.gif

It is actually centred on a point in County Leitrim, Ulster
but is close enough to Gatwick, at this scale, to illustrate
the point. Draw a straight line on the map from Gatwick to
Cacun and see where it goes ...

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Friday, 15 December 2017 14:22:42 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 12:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter distance less fuel quicker flight ?

That is the shortest distance. That is going across directly.




It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to greenland.


Buy yourself a globe and a bit of string and measure it

look at the real info that I have linked to.
The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.
Not knowing where a plane is and at what height isn't the best way to 'control air traffic'
In the future when the majority of ATC can use GPS then things will change and yuo do know that with GPS the ATC building doesn't even have to be located at the airport it can be almost anywhere.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:31:21 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 15 December 2017 14:22:42 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/17 12:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow
wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route
where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of
the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter
distance less fuel quicker flight ?

That is the shortest distance. That is going across directly.




It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to
greenland.


Buy yourself a globe and a bit of string and measure it

look at the real info that I have linked to.
The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.
Not knowing where a plane is and at what height isn't the best way to
'control air traffic'
In the future when the majority of ATC can use GPS then things will
change and yuo do know that with GPS the ATC building doesn't even have
to be located at the airport it can be almost anywhere.

Having been caught out, you are ignoring the correction.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Friday, 15 December 2017 15:49:09 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:31:21 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 15 December 2017 14:22:42 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/17 12:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow
wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route
where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of
the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter
distance less fuel quicker flight ?

That is the shortest distance. That is going across directly.




It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to
greenland.


Buy yourself a globe and a bit of string and measure it

look at the real info that I have linked to.
The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.
Not knowing where a plane is and at what height isn't the best way to
'control air traffic'
In the future when the majority of ATC can use GPS then things will
change and yuo do know that with GPS the ATC building doesn't even have
to be located at the airport it can be almost anywhere.

Having been caught out, you are ignoring the correction.

What correction is that then.
The one where it flies close to airports rather than across the sea where there's no radar.

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:07:37 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:48:59 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

So explain it if you understand it better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:07:37 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:48:59 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

So explain it if you understand it better.

You can plot great circleroutes on this:-

On Friday, 15 December 2017 16:46:55 UTC, harry wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:07:37 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:48:59 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

So explain it if you understand it better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

So.
Why did the plane follow the eastern USA coastline then ?

In article 899888a2-39cf-4f8c-871c-134be252a102
@googlegroups.com, says...

The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.
Not knowing where a plane is and at what height isn't the
best way to 'control air traffic'


GPS systems CAN calculate altitude but, as the GPS receiver
is on the plane, it won't be much use to ATC until a
reliable method of ensuring that this data is also available
to controllers in at least as accurate detail as current
radar systems.


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 16:46:55 UTC, harry wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:07:37 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:48:59 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

So explain it if you understand it better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

So.
Why did the plane follow the eastern USA coastline then ?

Because that was tehn great circle route from London to Mexico

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to
fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport.
That's why Heathrow wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the traffic volume.

Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.

Corse it is with long haul routes now there is no need to stop so often for
refuelling.

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

They don't take the shortest route from A-B
they take a route where they can be tracked.

More pig ignorant silly **** with ACARS which
allows aircraft to be tracked anywhere now.

Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan
why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

Because the system is moving to the new system which
allows all ACARS equipped aircraft to be tracked anywhere.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:54:58 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)?

why not take the What's your drinking nationality...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372



Take the which If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.

you mean you can't explain why the aircraft 'hugs' the cost

They dont.

and has to stay in a particular corridors .

Because until recently, it wasnt feasible to track heavys everywhere
and its taking time to move to the new approach that ACARS allows.

Can you explain why it's important for an aircraft to be on radar

That hasnt been true for a long time now.

so that other planes know where you
are at a point in time and space ?

Thats only important in the high traffic areas around major airports.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:54:58 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route
where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to
Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)?

why not take the What's your drinking nationality...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372



Take the which If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across
the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.

you mean you can't explain why the aircraft 'hugs' the cost and has to
stay in a particular corridors . Can you explain why it's important for
an
aircraft to be on radar so that other planes know where you are at a
point
in time and space ?

Because it isn't true. Nowadays commercial planes have transponders
which talk to each other (hence the name), anyway.

Nope, transponder responds to the radar by transmitting back the id,
altitude etc.

TCAS is what talks to each other.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 15 December 2017 13:26:46 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:54:58 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:59:43 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so
they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route
where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they
didn't
just fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

Am I missing something here? Is the inebriated one referring to
Cancun
(Yucatan peninsular, Mexico)?

why not take the What's your drinking nationality...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372



Take the which If so, a great circle route would appear
to take one across the Atlantic and down the East US coast, across
the
tip of Florida to Cancun.

He is. It's useless explaining to him, though.

you mean you can't explain why the aircraft 'hugs' the cost and has to
stay in a particular corridors . Can you explain why it's important for
an
aircraft to be on radar so that other planes know where you are at a
point
in time and space ?

Because it isn't true. Nowadays commercial planes have transponders
which talk to each other (hence the name), anyway.

Did you get that from the TV a week or so
ago, most airports still rely on radar NOT GPS.

Irrelevant to what happens between airports.

Air traffic control ATC uses radar NOT GPS.

Not in the middle of the ocean they dont.

All commercial aircraft are equipped with transponders

Nope, plenty arent.

(an abbreviation of "transmitter responder"), which automatically transmit
a unique four-digit code when they receive a radio signal sent by radar.

These transponders use RADAR NOT GPS.

He didnt say anything about GPS there.

google it.
do airlines use GPS or radar

Yes, but while GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life,
the world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely
radar-based.

That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map,

Utterly mangled all over again.

but this data is not usually shared with air traffic control.

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage with ACARS

And you are completely ignoring INS too.

of course things are improving but it's the airports that have
to upgrade there;s only 3 that currently have full GPS in use, the
most recent being london city airport another I think is Brussels.

Utterly mangled all over again.

In Europe GPS approach aids are still limited to a very limited
number of airports and have not yet been widely adapted,
despite pilots much preferring them over traditional and
inaccurate ground based approach procedures.

Utterly mangled all over again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-26544554

Doesnt say any of the **** you pig ignorantly spewed.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 15 December 2017 14:22:42 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/17 12:06, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:12:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/17 10:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 14 December 2017 20:57:12 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/12/2017 10:53, whisky-dave wrote:
This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow
wants
to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.


Allowing free choice of routes is for fuel savings.

No it isn't.


The economical
cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so they want to
climb
gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route
where they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just fly directly across the ocean


Great circle

Largely it takes you over greenland labrador and down the E coast of
the USA

Why doesn't it just go across directly then that would be a shorter
distance less fuel quicker flight ?

That is the shortest distance. That is going across directly.




It could go across cornwall but it doesn't it heads North to greenland.


Buy yourself a globe and a bit of string and measure it

look at the real info that I have linked to.

It says nothing useful about what is being discussed,
what happens in the middle of the ****ing ocean etc
with no airport anywhere near and no radar coverage.

The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.

Irrelevant to what ACARS uses.

Not knowing where a plane is and at what
height isn't the best way to 'control air traffic'

Even sillier than you usually manage in the
middle of the ****ing ocean outside radar range.

In the future when the majority of ATC
can use GPS then things will change

Not with routes over the ****ing ocean it wont.

and yuo do know that with GPS the ATC building doesn't even
have to be located at the airport it can be almost anywhere.

Its DISPLAYING the GPS information and
yes, the controllers and be anywhere at all.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 15 December 2017 16:46:55 UTC, harry wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 12:07:37 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 15 December 2017 11:48:59 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:24:24 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter, so
they
want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.
They don't take the shortest route from A-B they take a route
where
they can be tracked.
Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan why they didn't
just
fly directly across the ocean

You don't really understand map projections, do you?

So explain it if you understand it better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

So.
Why did the plane follow the eastern USA coastline then ?

Coz that route works better if the **** does hit the fan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article 899888a2-39cf-4f8c-871c-134be252a102
@googlegroups.com, says...

The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.
Not knowing where a plane is and at what height isn't the
best way to 'control air traffic'


GPS systems CAN calculate altitude but, as the GPS receiver
is on the plane, it won't be much use to ATC until a
reliable method of ensuring that this data is also available
to controllers in at least as accurate detail as current
radar systems.

ACARS does that for long distance routes.

On Friday, 15 December 2017 17:36:49 UTC, Terry Casey wrote:
In article 899888a2-39cf-4f8c-871c-134be252a102
@googlegroups.com, says...

The majority of air traffic contols stations DO NOT use GPS.
Not knowing where a plane is and at what height isn't the
best way to 'control air traffic'


GPS systems CAN calculate altitude but, as the GPS receiver
is on the plane, it won't be much use to ATC until a
reliable method of ensuring that this data is also available
to controllers in at least as accurate detail as current
radar systems.

What drivel you spout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_tr..._beacon_system

Also known as "squawk"

If you're in an aircraft with a transponder/squawk, the operating light comes on every time it's "swept" by ground ATC radar indicating the ID signal has been sent out.

In article 8456caf0-cc71-4de7-af89-414aa0685ce5
@googlegroups.com, says...

On Friday, 15 December 2017 17:36:49 UTC, Terry Casey wrote:
In article 899888a2-39cf-4f8c-871c-134be252a102

GPS systems CAN calculate altitude but, as the GPS receiver
is on the plane, it won't be much use to ATC until a
reliable method of ensuring that this data is also available
to controllers in at least as accurate detail as current
radar systems.

What drivel you spout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_tr..._beacon_system

Also known as "squawk"

If you're in an aircraft with a transponder/squawk, the operating light comes on every time it's "swept" by ground ATC radar indicating the ID signal has been sent out.


But that doesn't mention GPS at all and is purely concerned
with communicating with the aircraft via RADAR.

Where GPS data from the aircraft would be useful is to track
aircraft which are out of RADAR range.

How often does a plane vanish and nobody has a clue
whereabouts in thousands of square miles of ocean - in at
least one case, over a million square miles - to start
looking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malays...nes_Flight_370


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Saturday, 16 December 2017 01:50:51 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to
fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport.
That's why Heathrow wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the traffic volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a new London airlort.



The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes, because then no one knoes where they are for sure and that;s not good for air traffic contol.


They don't take the shortest route from A-B
they take a route where they can be tracked.

More pig ignorant silly **** with ACARS which
allows aircraft to be tracked anywhere now.

Didnlt find Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did it.


Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan
why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

Because the system is moving to the new system which
allows all ACARS equipped aircraft to be tracked anywhere.

Sure a systemn from 1978, being replaced by GPS.