"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ps.com...
Actually the question makes sense, at least to the non-aviation public,
because the normal use of a treadmill suggests the opposite, ie a
person walking on the treadmill remains stationary, yet he burns energy
as if he were walking on solid ground.

Who says the question doesn't make sense?

The problem that the people who don't "get it" have is that a typical
treadmill is used in a situation where propulsion is via the interface with
the ground, whereas airplanes get their propulsion via other means. (And I
don't think this has anything to do with aviation public vs non-aviation
public...plenty of pilots don't understand the physics either, as has been
amply demonstrated here).

[...]
A better way to pose the airplane question would be " what would
happen if the airplane is landing on a treadmill that is moving in the
opposite direction and speed?"

That's not a better way at all. That asks an entirely different question
and takes advantage of a completely different prejudice the answerer might
have.

Pete