Folks, please excuse this slight digression.
Originally Posted by italia458
The reason I'm saying not to overcomplicate it is because if you're talking about groundspeed of an aircraft, it's that damn simple!
italia, I for one have registered many times that you prefer one definition of ground speed. I don't know what it contributes to a
discussion to have it repeated many times. What would contribute, to my mind, would be to have new, good, reasons for preferring it over another.
Originally Posted by italia458
It's kind of stupid to bring it up on a forum like this because all the little nerdy/geniuses of this board LOVE to pick apart the simplest definition and make it the most complicated, and then in the end they find they've gotten nowhere!
I don't think it is at all stupid. Indeed, I enjoy it! Being one of the "little nerdy/geniuses... [who] LOVE to pick apart the simplest[-seeming] definition", indeed having made much of a career doing that, I don't see anything wrong with it. Especially since I have seen the effects of what I do improve safety for some and derive appropriate compensation for not-so-lucky others.
Consider, the people whose views on "ground speed" we are discussing actually built the equipment you use on a daily basis in your flying. Some people think flying isn't half as much fun and full of expertise as it used to be, but the statistics say that it's noticeably safer!
PBL