Value of Thought

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Now, back to the question.
If the FAA tells pilots to maintain level flight by adjusting their position relative to the horizon, why would you suggest they do anything different?

RELATIVE position to the horizon [as long as you can see it and don't have any pesky hills or
mountains to get in the way] is fine. Keeping it 'strait ahead, at zero degrees declination relative to the nose of
the aircraft is not.
Flying like that will rapidly introduce you to the ground.

Perhaps you should have actually read our posts, instead of glossed over them, and then you would understand this.

Did you not see the angle of the Typhoon in the picture I linked?

Originally posted by divegeester
Line of sight and eye level are not the same thing.

There has been no equivocation in the use of the terms.
I have used the term "line of sight" as it relates to that which can be seen when a person looks straight ahead, to observe what is at eye level for the same observer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, the horizon is supposed to be kept in the direct line of sight--- eye level--- with the pilot.
But of course, I'm just spitballin' here...

'Line of Sight', and 'Eye Level', ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Keeping the horizon within your line of sight is not the same as keeping it at exactly 0 degrees to
the nose of your aircraft. [which is what WE mean by eye level]


One of those is an aid to maintaining situational awareness.
The other is an aid to crashing into the ground.

Originally posted by FMF
If it's not about being "religious" why have you been dismissing arguments you disagree with as "anti-religious" or whatever the word is you have been using?

Because it is the usual crowd of those people who are arguing the wrong side of an obvious point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
'Line of Sight', and 'Eye Level', ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Keeping the horizon within your line of sight is not the same as keeping it at exactly 0 degrees to
the nose of your aircraft. [which is what WE mean by eye level]


One of those is an aid to maintaining situational awareness.
The other is an aid to crashing into the ground.

Ah, I think I see what you mean, now.
So the pilot should always keep the horizon at eye level, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There has been no equivocation in the use of the terms.
I have used the term "line of sight" as it relates to that which can be seen when a person looks straight ahead, to observe what is at eye level for the same observer.

Then you are not using those words to mean the same thing as everyone else and so
you are talking [definitionally] gibberish.

Here's an idea.

STOP USING THOSE WORDS.

We obviously do not agree with you what they mean, so stop using them.

Instead, every time you want to use them, DESCRIBE what it is you think is going on.

For example, I could replace 'in your eye line' with "in line with the horizontal plane [at 90
degrees to local vertical] that passes through the centre of your eye ball [or camera lens]" which makes my
meaning absolutely clear, and stops arguments about what 'eye line' means.

Equally I could replace "in your line of sight" with something like "there are no obstructions preventing
direct light rays from the [target object] entering your eyeball [or camera]"

I replace the word with the definition I am using in this sentence.

It then doesn't matter if there are other definitions or interpretations because they obviously don't
apply. And nobody can be confused because the words 'eye line' do not appear. Only the intended
meaning is conveyed.


This has the added benefit of preventing equivocation fallacies from occurring.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Now, were you going to talk about the subject or follow the usual tack and take potshots from the sideline?

What could I possibly add here, given your comprehensive mastery of the topic on display? I keed, I keed.

Regarding "the subject", your original question was this:

[quote]"But outside of this, what possible bearing do those ...[text shortened]... n that topic (e.g., whether our mental representations are in map-like form or just linguistic)?

He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?

I don't recall posing the question in any way, shape or form to elicit the idea of separating and isolating one's multiple strands of beliefs.
The one caveat to the question--- a belief which would cause a cessation of life--- was the only exception to not consider of all beliefs a person could hold.
If you wish to answer that question, you'd be the first to do so.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, I think I see what you mean, now.
So the pilot should always keep the horizon at eye level, right?

NO!

Not unless you are trying to descend.

In level flight aircraft fly with positive angle of attack, requiring a slight nose up attitude.

At altitude the visible horizon will be below local horizontal and thus flying pointing at the
horizon will cause your plane to [rapidly] descend.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Then you are not using those words to mean the same thing as everyone else and so
you are talking [definitionally] gibberish.

Here's an idea.

STOP USING THOSE WORDS.

We obviously do not agree with you what they mean, so stop using them.

Instead, every time you want to use them, DESCRIBE what it is you think is going on.

For example, I co ...[text shortened]... s conveyed.


This has the added benefit of preventing equivocation fallacies from occurring.

The reason there is no equivocation is that I have made the use of the words achingly clear.
A person looking straight ahead has the horizon in their line of sight, right at eye level.

Those who wish to act confused on the point are free to be confused.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The reason there is no equivocation is that I have made the use of the words achingly clear.
A person looking straight ahead has the horizon in their line of sight, right at eye level.

Those who wish to act confused on the point are free to be confused.

That was just a word salad.

And you cannot claim to be clear when NOBODY else agrees with what you are claiming.
[note. not that they disagree with what you are claiming, but that they don't agree about
what it is that you are claiming.]

You have not made what you mean clear, which is why we keep asking for you to define them.

I don't believe I know what you mean by "horizon", "straight ahead", "eye level", or "line of sight".

You appear to be almost purposefully unclear and deliberately confusing and equivocating.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except I didn't suggest you need support.

You falsely claimed that everyone in the world agreed with you. You then changed your statement to include only those people you judge 'reasonable'.

Can you find one such reasonable person? I thought not.

[b]The only support I need is what has been given: proof from various sources showing the exact same ...[text shortened]... ou haven't. You presented several links to images that quite clearly did not support your claim.

Except I didn't suggest you need support.
And yet you continue to ask for me to claim votes cast for my claims.

You falsely claimed that everyone in the world agreed with you.
I correctly called you an idiot.
Does that even the scoreboard?
What I actually said was that everyone in the world is able to experience the exact same phenomenon, thus agreeing with the claim.
Lots of people can take a balloon ride.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318801/Stunning-sunrise-greets-tourists-worlds-best-hot-air-balloon-ride-rock-caves-Cappadocia-Turkey.html
Lots of people can take a hike to a mountain top.
http://freehdw.com/wallpaper/a-view-from-mountain-56807.html
Lots of people can take an airplane ride, too.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/donbuciak/6147222497/

What do all of these folks have in common?
The ability to see the horizon at eye level, despite progressively higher elevations.

Can you find one such reasonable person? I thought not.
Well, there you go again...

Can you name anyone that agrees with you whose opinion we can independently verify?
Your mom?

Originally posted by googlefudge
That was just a word salad.

And you cannot claim to be clear when NOBODY else agrees with what you are claiming.
[note. not that they disagree with what you are claiming, but that they don't agree about
what it is that you are claiming.]

You have not made what you mean clear, which is why we keep asking for you to define them.

I don't believe ...[text shortened]... t".

You appear to be almost purposefully unclear and deliberately confusing and equivocating.

After all of this, you're now asking me to define what has been clearly defined from the beginning of this argument?

A person sitting or standing with their head straight and eyes looking directly ahead has a line of sight.
That line of sight is their eye level.
At their eye level, they are able to see the true horizon (that's the thing you said was not a see-able thing, if you recall).
The only thing(s) which could keep a person from seeing the true horizon are natural or man-made obstacles.
With the removal of those obstacles, a person gifted with sight and looking straight ahead will have the true horizon in their line of sight at eye level... NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE ON EARTH.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?

I don't recall posing the question in any way, shape or form to elicit the idea of separating and isolating one's multiple strands of beliefs.
The one caveat to the question--- a belief which would cause a cessation of life--- was the only exception to not consider of all beliefs a person could hold.
If you wish to answer that question, you'd be the first to do so.

Huh?

Originally posted by googlefudge
NO!

Not unless you are trying to descend.

In level flight aircraft fly with positive angle of attack, requiring a slight nose up attitude.

At altitude the visible horizon will be below local horizontal and thus flying pointing at the
horizon will cause your plane to [rapidly] descend.

When the horizon is below the nose, the plane will be ascending.
When the horizon is beneath the nose, the plane will be descending.
When a pilot desires forward progress, he keeps his nose level with the visible horizon.
Just take a look at the supplied link to FAA, son.
It will clear up all of your confusion.
In figure 3-3, there is a spot for the pilot to focus upon while flying "straight and level," called the reference point.
You're never going to believe where it is!
Oh, darn it: you guess it!
Right on the horizon, exactly at eye level.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
God, that's some really great stuff.

Now, back to the question.
If the FAA tells pilots to maintain level flight by adjusting their position relative to the horizon, why would you suggest they do anything different?

[i]"The pitch attitude for level flight (constant altitude) is usually obtained by selecting some portion of the airplane’s nose as a r ...[text shortened]... irect line of sight--- eye level--- with the pilot.
But of course, I'm just spitballin' here...

It says "relative to", this does not automatically mean "at". To fly straight and level one needs the wings at some angle of attack which depends on one's airspeed, so where one needs the nose pointing depends on how fast one's flying and what the angle of the wings is relative to the direction of thrust.