Originally Posted by
Chronic Snoozer
Must be a weak theory.
It's not my theory and I don't care if it's weak or not. I'm simply interested in seeing it tested and found either to be underdetermined by a more sound theory or not, in a process of civil discussion free from emotional and thick-headed input. As yet the former has not occurred in this forum. Why are you and Dre so emotionally invested in it?
Originally Posted by
Chronic Snoozer
Classic example of playing the person not the ball.
Actually, it's not a classic example of any such thing. Don't be ridiculous. It appears from the discourse here that Dre is not as smart as he likes to hold himself to be and has soon resorted to playing the person as you call it, calling the person a flight simmer, casting aspersions on the person's aeronautical experience and qualification, etc, and then leaving. It's not very nice, not at all useful and the overall pattern is certainly indicative of narcissistic behaviour. Therefore the comments are not at all aimed at playing the man but at questioning the real motivation for the attack on this theory and the discussion thereof.
If you want a "classic example" look at posts #101 and 109 plus a few by other posters. Maybe you're his mummy in which case I aplogise for holding up the mirror.
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
How does the primary radar track reveal which mode the aircraft was in laterally?
I would still like to know this too, please.
This may not have been specifically addressed. I think the theory on this is based on observed turn radius, speed, altitude and AFDS limitations. Is that what you're saying,
GBO?