landell

If you've ever wondered if the official FAA / CAA explanation of how planes fly (as taught to pilots) is BS, well it is. In fact, it’s total BS. The theory itself is illogical and implausible.

My research shows that planes fly based on the same principles as how birds fly; by pushing air downwards. It’s very simple and straight forward.

see: " How airplanes stay airborne - SUMMARY (updated) " - by N Landell.
https://youtu.be/NV6MdKvysF8
(13 minutes long. If you have a problem with this link, just search youtube for the title.)

As the CAA don’t know how planes fly, then logically neither does most instructors & pilots.

I’ve started emailing lawyers representing aviation victims. If the CAA do nothing on this, then one day I hope to present this in a court against the CAA, LAA, FAA, Boeing, Airbus, … or any negligent pilot or flying instructor.

regards
Nick
---

9GulfTango

This is hardly a ground breaking theory. I was taught this and I am sure a majority of the people on this forum have too. Best of luck with those lawsuits

cougar

Mr. Landell

This is a professional aviation forum, and though many threads may divert from the original topic, generally the members of this forum are seeking accurate information.

While I think it is imperative to have open discussion and even disagreement, the "manufactured" conflict you suggest between conventional aerodynamics and mass displacement theory is so egregious I felt I needed to comment.

This is your first post, as such we have no knowledge of your background in aviation, aerodynamics and, most importantly, your agenda.

I did view your Youtube videos and they are very slick. However, it is very difficult to give a rigorous treatment of aerodynamics in a 40 minute video. Or claim it is a technical discussion and fail to include one equation, as aerodynamics (physics) is essentially applied mathematics.

In an effort to present a more detailed discussion of the "conventional" theory, these free classes are available:

https://www.edx.org/course/flight-ve...itx-16-110x-0#!

https://www.edx.org/course/introduct...mitx-16-101x-0

https://www.edx.org/course/introduct...x-math226-1x-0

https://www.coursera.org/learn/calculus1

If this still isn't convincing, you may want to add MIT, Stanford and any university with an aerodynamics department to your list of defendants.

JamesNoBrakes

This should be interesting....

I'm curious to know if all the pressure sensors that have been hooked up to the top of wings during testing were all wrong?

SqueeG

GucciBoy

So you come to a professional pilot forum to announce intentions to bring a bunch of frivolous lawsuits against "negligent" pilots? Makes we want to believe that there is a hell.

Oh, and everyone knows that planes fly through a combination of money and PFM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tomgoodman

The conventional wisdom in UPT was that airplanes are held up by tiny elf-like beings called "lifties". By Friday afternoon, they are getting tired from working all week, and might accidentally drop an airplane, so we had to knock off flying and go to happy hour.
That was our story and we stuck to it.

Flyhayes

Let me guess, your instructor didn't sign you off and now you're taking it out on an entire industry....

ygtbsm

StudentsScareMe

Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to take part in one of my favorite Festivus traditions, the airing of grievances.

What's negligent is your grasp on grammar, not the pilots and instructors you intend to sue. Before you commence your quest to change the theories behind physics of flight, maybe you could gain a little more credibility by having someone else type up what you want to say. Also, I highly doubt there have been any significant accidents that were the result of the pilots thinking their airplane was being sucked up, not pushed up. Good luck in your endeavors.

Winston

Delusion of Grandeur » Encyclopedia of Psychology | Encyclopedia of Psychology