Mythbusters, Plane on a treadmill..

[ackattacker]

Allright threadcreepers, I'll jump in here.

There isn't enough information in the above example. The storm can be at your 12 o'clock, but how far away? 5 miles, 30 miles? You may miss a storm at your 12 or you may not. How fast are you going? The faster you go, the less the wind correction angle for a given constant wind, therefore the closer you would be to a storm.
Basically you figure it with your eyeballs. Just like an airplane on a collision course with you, is it moving or not in your field of vision? If it is not moving, you're going to hit it so you better turn.
I'll agree that the ATP's response in the initial example didn't make much sense, which is what I think the point was.

That was the point. But I think I gave enough information for it to be obvious. Wind correction angle and airspeed and distance from the storm and so on is irrelevant so long as the storm is drifting in the same air mass that you are flying in. It is easy to clog your mind with extra, non-relevant info.

Picture the problem as if you could not see the ground or your track over it. Perhaps flying above an undercast with no navigation equipment. You are flying straight relative to the air. The storm is stationary relative to the air. If you are pointed at it then you will hit it. That's it, that was my point.

 

[rtmcfi]

Picture the problem as if you could not see the ground or your track over it. Perhaps flying above an undercast with no navigation equipment. You are flying straight relative to the air. The storm is stationary relative to the air. If you are pointed at it then you will hit it. That's it, that was my point.

Or picture flying a course the way airlines do 99% of the time. You fly a straight line over the ground, regardless of the winds. Unless you were flying a heading, your captain was most likely correct. Figure it out Urkel.

 

[ackattacker]

Really I can't believe we are arguing this. First off he wasn't "my captain". It was his leg however.

I specified, pretty clearly, that the t'storm was at our 12 O'Clock. As in "straight ahead of the airplane". You know, aligned with the longitudinal axis. Not clear enough? Picture sitting in your seat with a neck brace on and seatbelts tight. Eyes straight ahead. That's your 12 O'Clock. It is a relative bearing. Not necessarily your course over the ground.

The difference between "flying a heading" and "flying a course" means exactly nothing in this case. Doesn't matter so long as we don't turn! That's for ATC to worry about, not the laws of physics. Physically we *have* a heading and we *have* a course. In this problem only relative bearing is relevant.

Failure to comprehend the difference between heading and course was exactly this fellows problem. He seemed to think that the aircraft was going where it was pointed, whereas the thunderstorm was subject to drift. Clearly wrong, so why is everyone trying to defend this mystery dimwit?

 

[rtmcfi]

Your signature say's it all.

 

[Singlecoil]

Your signature say's it all.

Pretty much.
Apparently he think thunderstorms move at the exact same speed as the airmass like they are a ball of cotton or something.

 

[ackattacker]

Your signature say's it all.

Yep. And you are certainly not agreeing with me.

 

[Captzaahlie]

First off Picture sitting in your seat with a neck brace on and seatbelts tight. Eyes

Why are you wearing a neck brace? Are your landings that hard???????????????????????????

 

[Say Again Over]

Airmass, vector, heading? Who gives a rat's ass?

 

[Midnight Flyer]

He's probably a young know-it-all punk, fresh out of Embry-Riddle, with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. That's obvious due to his need to "over prove" everything. Seriously, I haven't heard the term "relative bearing" in who knows how long.

I bet he thinks his 172 will take off if the runway was a big treadmill. :laugh:

(oh yeah, since when in 12,000 feet considered a "medium altitude"?)

 

[homerjdispatch]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?