I'd never seen this before

John Mazor writes:

If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring articles on flypaper and
being rejected for editor status, you'd know the definition as set by the Fédération
Aéronautique Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

What makes their definition special?

On Jan 3, 6:41 am, Andy Hawkins wrote:
Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:

Well, even at middling altitudes I find it hard to tell the altitude of
other airplanes.

I read somewhere that if the other plane appears above the horizon, it's
above you. Similarly, if it appears below the horizon, it's below you.

Obviously this will change depending on whether you're climbing or
descending, but as a general rule it sounds like it could make sense.

Haven't really had the chance to test it myself since I read it though.


I stopped at putting the finger on the wind shield over the other
aircraft.
If it moves from under my finger I keep on course.
If it doesn't appear I change course, altitude or airspeed until it
does appear.
The horizon trick seems valid though I've never tried (or even thought
of it until now)
Thanks

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"John Mazor" wrote in
news:rWPej.1335$v_4.524@trnddc03:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja writes:

Hay-el, if you use that as a criteria, the Shuttle doesn't go into
outer space, either. You get measurable atmospheric drag out to
1000 km or more.
Yes.

The internationally-agreed boundary for space starts is at 100 km.
100 km above the surface of the sun is still a pretty wild place.
Which international agreement did you have in mind?
If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring articles
on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd know the
definition as set by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

Bwawhawhahwhahwh!

You're kidding about the flypaper, right?

No, he isn't. Too bad Anthony doesn't take his own advice with which he
edited the UNICOM entry. He wrote, "Flight simulation trivia doesn't
belong in a real-world discussion of aviation."

As in many things, arbitrary choices are made and agreed upon. You can
choose to accept those definitions or not, but if you don't you have
trouble communicating with the community of experts who do use the
words in the way other professionals understand them to be used. The
phrase near infrared comes to mind, and now we can add outer space as
evidence of your lack of comprehensive abilities. Other than literate
postings and playing sim games, is there anything for which you can
claim expert status.

Oh, I forgot the most obvious ones -- you inspire Bertie.


An enduring trait among true professionals is their willingness to
admit when they are wrong. Insecure people seem to have trouble with
that.

I am still waiting to see you derive, using right triangles, line of
sight distances over a horizon defined by ones altitude over a sphere.

Quick -- google to the rescue!



On Jan 2, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
John Mazor writes:
If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring articles on flypaper and
being rejected for editor status, you'd know the definition as set by the Fédération
Aéronautique Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

What makes their definition special?

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Mazor writes:

If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring articles on flypaper and
being rejected for editor status, you'd know the definition as set by the Fédération
Aéronautique Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

What makes their definition special?


Because, much like your ignorance, it is internationally recognized.

"John Mazor" wrote in
news:WxRej.87645$NL5.49053@trnddc05:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"John Mazor" wrote in
news:rWPej.1335$v_4.524@trnddc03:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja writes:

Hay-el, if you use that as a criteria, the Shuttle doesn't go into
outer space, either. You get measurable atmospheric drag out to
1000 km or more.

Yes.

The internationally-agreed boundary for space starts is at 100 km.

100 km above the surface of the sun is still a pretty wild place.
Which international agreement did you have in mind?

If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring
articles on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd
know the definition as set by the Fédération Aéronautique
Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

Bwawhawhahwhahwh!

You're kidding about the flypaper, right?

Nope.

And it was a half-ass effort at that. He didn't even bother using his
photographic "talents" to contribute an original pic of flypaper, he
just linked to an existing generic wiki shot.


Good grief.


Well, thank god he;s out there doig it for the sake of civilisation, I
say.

Bertie

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:477be7de$0$1115$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"John Mazor" wrote in
news:rWPej.1335$v_4.524@trnddc03:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja writes:

Hay-el, if you use that as a criteria, the Shuttle doesn't go into
outer space, either. You get measurable atmospheric drag out to
1000 km or more.
Yes.

The internationally-agreed boundary for space starts is at 100 km.
100 km above the surface of the sun is still a pretty wild place.
Which international agreement did you have in mind?
If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring
articles
on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd know the
definition as set by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

Bwawhawhahwhahwh!

You're kidding about the flypaper, right?

No, he isn't. Too bad Anthony doesn't take his own advice with which
he
edited the UNICOM entry. He wrote, "Flight simulation trivia doesn't
belong in a real-world discussion of aviation."


And it doesn't get more trivial than him.


Bertie

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Certainly, because a diagram to scale couldn't illustrate anything.
While the distances involved are exaggerated, the visual effects
are the same.


Ron, thanks for the diagram and the explanation. I frequently fly with
my wife out here (socal) in the mountains, and she will regularly look
out at a ridge 50-100 miles away from us when we're cruising at
8500-9500 ft. and say "those mountains look higher than us - are we
going to hit them?", or the functional equivalent. I glance at the map,
say "well, they're 7500 ft high, so we're 1K-2K ft above them, but
acknowledge that they DO look higher than our altitude, judging from the
horizon position.

Of course, when we get there, we find that we're above the ridge, just
like the map says (it's never wrong [so far]) and we shrug our shoulders
and go "huh - how do you like that".

Now I have the explanation for her (and me) as to why it looks like it
does - thanks!


I had the same issue flying to Tucson from the east one time. The
mountains looked much higher than I was. But looking at the charts and
the MEAs, I was fine at my altitude. As we motored along, they went
right below us.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring articles
on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd know the
definition as set by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

What makes their definition special?


What makes you "special"?


Bertie

Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Mazor writes:

If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring
articles on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd
know the definition as set by the Fédération Aéronautique
Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

What makes their definition special?


Because, much like your ignorance, it is internationally recognized.


Boom! headshot!

Bertie