The puzzles of international travel...
-
Rob Manderson wrote: it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. They will be very happy if they hear this. How's the stewardess? Did their services and smile captivate you? :-D Weiye Chen When pursuing your dreams, don't forget to enjoy your life...
Weiye Chen wrote: How's the stewardess? Did their services and smile captivate you? Uh huh - they did! My one regret on the entire trip (but I'll be doing it again sometime in August methinks) is that I didn't get out of Singapore Airport (and thus I don't count Singapore as a country I've visited yet). Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
-
Hi Rob. This[^] is the map of the shortest distance from Los Angeles to Singapore. As you can see, it's not quite far from what you really did. And as for the little deviation to the north that you mention, I can only guess that it might be due to the weather. A front wind can be a nightmare for a plane, while a tail wind is wonderful. If you remember the ground speed that showed up on the on board map, if you saw some speed above 950 km/h, then you had tail winds, and the pilot was surely looking for them :) Hope this helps a little. Regards Francisco Viella Silver at last!!
Francisco Viella wrote: Hope this helps a little. It helps a lot :) Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing speeds of 950 km/h and above (and thinking that is the fastest I've ever crossed the globe) :) I also recall seeing tailwinds in the 30 to 140 km/h range. I tried the other flights I'm familiar with on that website and they match what I've been used to (Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland). I guess that's my puzzle solved. What a wonderful resource CP is! I knew there had to be some rational explanation. Every kilometre of flight in a plane that big has to represent some real dollars so it makes sense they'd follow the path of least resistance. Thank you! Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
-
Did the airplane have 2/3/4 engines??? There is a requirement (I'm looking for the documents about it now) that the planes have to stay a certain 'distance' (e.g 1 hour away, 2 hours away etc) from the nearest airport incase of an emergency.. This 'distance' depends on the number of engines. Remember that in the early 90's 2 engined planes could not cross the atlantic... this was due to the fact that the requirement for a 2 engined airplane was that they were never more then x hours (I think it was 1) from a landing-strip/airport in the case of an emergency. This rule was changed as engines became more efficient and a 2 engined plane could now fly on 1 engine for x amount of time longer. I presume that ye didn't fly too far off the most efficient route anyway... It sounds about right (except the going further north bit). Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS FeedFour engines as far as I can remember. I've learned, when getting on planes, not to count such things - do I really need the worry? I go on the assumption that a commercial organisation's interest in getting me to my destination in one piece coincides with my own interests :) Anyway, flying across the Pacific Ocean on a jet plane has got to be safer than crossing Bell Road Scottsdale as a pedestrian. (There are one or two drivers here who have learned that there's more than one way of pronouncing the word asshole :) ) Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
It might also have something to do with flight paths... remember that there are lots of planes in the sky, not just yours, and it is good if they don't run into each other, or even get too close. :) I imagine that with enough planes going in enough different directions, some of the paths they take could end up looking very strange indeed. -- Diane C "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." (Voltaire)
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
A subject I can get my teeth into! As has already been pointed out, the great circle bit can catch you by surprise. It is usually much more extreme than you'd think. ETOPS has been relaxed a *lot* in the last decade or two, so that won't be much of a factor anymore. SIA isn't the only airline like that. I flew LHR-HKG in January, and was very impressed. Video on Demand in economy, decent seats, and staff that left you alone, but were with you when you needed them. I even managed to get three seats together to myself, put the arms up and had a sleeper! What amused my was all the dim blue glowy bits. Overclock-chic. As for Singapore. Changi airport is very clean, very efficient, pleasant, expensive and dull. Much like Singapore! Iain.
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
Actually, what they don't tell you is that planes don't go as fast as you think it does. Come on, do you really expect something so big and heavy to just zoom around the sky??? No, what they're doing is that they employ the use of strategically placed interconnecting wormholes placed around the world. As it happens, the nearest wormhole to LA is somewhere to the northwest. And don't be mistaken by the window view. It's just holograms projected by a viewing screen. Why do you think the ask you to never open the window.:suss: I'm sorry if I'm in a weird mood. I just found out I have to work through the weekend because of some stupid configuration issue that just won't go away. :sigh:
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
-
Just a guess but, jet streams? Aren't they important? Often when I fly the pilot sounds pleased to announce favourable tail winds allowing for faster flights. Even flying Cape Town to London is a bit strange, it definitely is not a straight line. We always fly up towards Spain and then hang a left at France and fly over Paris to London. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Ian Darling wrote: "and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python." Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: We always fly up towards Spain and then hang a left at France and fly over Paris to London. That's more to do with air traffic - Europe (and London in particular) has increadible amounts of air traffic. When I flew between Madrid and Edinburgh the flight path would weave about and as near as I could tell we flew directly over Heathrow as all the other flights at the same hight as us were going E/W as they arrive/depart Heathrow while we were going N/S. Landing into Madrid is also fairly interesting as 95% of the time the flight goes right past Madrid then turns 180 degrees as it approaches Toledo and goes back north again - but that has more to do with wind direction. [EDIT] If you use Francisco's link you can see that the most efficient route would be a direct line: Edinburgh - Madrid[^] and Cape Town to London Heathrow[^] [/EDIT]
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
-
Actually, what they don't tell you is that planes don't go as fast as you think it does. Come on, do you really expect something so big and heavy to just zoom around the sky??? No, what they're doing is that they employ the use of strategically placed interconnecting wormholes placed around the world. As it happens, the nearest wormhole to LA is somewhere to the northwest. And don't be mistaken by the window view. It's just holograms projected by a viewing screen. Why do you think the ask you to never open the window.:suss: I'm sorry if I'm in a weird mood. I just found out I have to work through the weekend because of some stupid configuration issue that just won't go away. :sigh:
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
Nick you will be removed at the first available moment for releasing an international secret.:suss::suss: Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Actually, what they don't tell you is that planes don't go as fast as you think it does. Come on, do you really expect something so big and heavy to just zoom around the sky??? No, what they're doing is that they employ the use of strategically placed interconnecting wormholes placed around the world. As it happens, the nearest wormhole to LA is somewhere to the northwest. And don't be mistaken by the window view. It's just holograms projected by a viewing screen. Why do you think the ask you to never open the window.:suss: I'm sorry if I'm in a weird mood. I just found out I have to work through the weekend because of some stupid configuration issue that just won't go away. :sigh:
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
Nick Seng wrote: Why do you think the ask you to never open the window :laugh::laugh::laugh: Yup, weird sense of humour
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
-
Francisco Viella wrote: Hope this helps a little. It helps a lot :) Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing speeds of 950 km/h and above (and thinking that is the fastest I've ever crossed the globe) :) I also recall seeing tailwinds in the 30 to 140 km/h range. I tried the other flights I'm familiar with on that website and they match what I've been used to (Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland). I guess that's my puzzle solved. What a wonderful resource CP is! I knew there had to be some rational explanation. Every kilometre of flight in a plane that big has to represent some real dollars so it makes sense they'd follow the path of least resistance. Thank you! Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
I will also suggest just get a real globe and use a piece of string between the two points of interest. For variation keep in mind the earth is NOT a sphere! I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
Also, for security reasons, the airlines have to stay within a certain range of airports capable of handling such a large aircraft in case of an emergency. That's another reason why they don't fly straight across any large amounts of water - no place to go in case of e.g. total engine failure..... ============================= Marc Scheuner, Berne, Switzerland m.scheuner - at - inova.ch May The Source Be With You!
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
Rob Manderson wrote: Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time Isn't an Airbus a two engine aircraft? My understanding is that the FAA hasn't relaxed rules on overseas flights, requiring 4 engines. Has this changed? I remember it was being debated a couple years ago. If the 4 engine requirement is still in place, you may have hit exactly on the reason. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog RealDevs.Net
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
If I recall correctly, FAA regulations require foreign carriers to utilize overseas routes that keep them within rowing distance of a habitable shore.;) "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
-
Rob Manderson wrote: Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time Isn't an Airbus a two engine aircraft? My understanding is that the FAA hasn't relaxed rules on overseas flights, requiring 4 engines. Has this changed? I remember it was being debated a couple years ago. If the 4 engine requirement is still in place, you may have hit exactly on the reason. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog RealDevs.Net
Marc Clifton wrote: Isn't an Airbus a two engine aircraft A340[^] is a four-jet aircraft. Marc Clifton wrote: Has this changed? IIRC, yes, but to "help" the Boeing 777, a two-jet aircraft nonetheless allowed to do trans-pacific travels (http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183011-1.html[^])
Собой остаться дольше...
-
Hi Rob. This[^] is the map of the shortest distance from Los Angeles to Singapore. As you can see, it's not quite far from what you really did. And as for the little deviation to the north that you mention, I can only guess that it might be due to the weather. A front wind can be a nightmare for a plane, while a tail wind is wonderful. If you remember the ground speed that showed up on the on board map, if you saw some speed above 950 km/h, then you had tail winds, and the pilot was surely looking for them :) Hope this helps a little. Regards Francisco Viella Silver at last!!
Francisco Viella wrote: A front wind can be a nightmare for a plane, while a tail wind is wonderful. Just curious, what good will the greater speed do if you are going in the wrong direction? :-D[
My articles and software tools
-
It might also have something to do with flight paths... remember that there are lots of planes in the sky, not just yours, and it is good if they don't run into each other, or even get too close. :) I imagine that with enough planes going in enough different directions, some of the paths they take could end up looking very strange indeed. -- Diane C "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." (Voltaire)
I had the opportunity to visit a FAA Enroute Facility last year and there ARE a lot of planes up in the air during the day. Each controller is assigned a 3 dimensional area of airspace and is responsible for each plane as it enters his area (not exactly shaped as a cube) until it exits his area. As the planes go from area to area they are handed off from one controller to another controller. Sample Enroute Air Traffic Display[^] - seeing the displays updating in real time was way cool! There are 20 of these centers in the US. There are other facilities that take care of traffic management when planes take off and get close to their final destinations. GPS navigation is still being developed, so there are still ground stations (beacons) that planes use to make sure they stay on course. I suspect that may be another reason the overseas planes stay close to land when ever possible. As far as I know they do not have navigational beacons in the middle of the ocean (not counting islands). Steve
-
A couple of weeks ago I posted from Singapore and mentioned that I'd spent 18 hours flying from Los Angeles to Singapore. Someone questioned that time. Flight time was actually 18 and a half hours* and the route taken puzzles me a trifle. If one looks at a map one sees that Singapore is west of LA and a few degrees north of the equator (that is to say, southwest of LA). The route we took was as follows (partly taken from the map display on board the plane, partly from observation - I had a window seat on the right hand side of the plane). Out of LA, westward over the Pacific Ocean. I was surprised 15 minutes into the flight to see land off to the right. We were travelling northward. An hour into the flight I could see San Francisco. Some hours later the map display indicated we were close to Alaska and indeed the horizon looked like pre-dawn (no sun but lots of pink). This continued for some hours as the map indicated we had passed northward of the Aleutian Islands and faded as we turned southward again. At about the time the map indicated we were over Japan (having passed by Siberia and Northern China) all I could see below were clouds brightly lit from below - for some hundreds of miles. Thence across the Philippines (my destination) and continuing south westwards to Singapore. Thus, 18 and a half hours later, we landed at Changi Airport and doubled back to Manila. I understand that paper maps are a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and that aeronautical navigation involves great circles but that route seems to me to be somewhat out of the way even allowing for great circle navigation. Indeed, it felt almost as if the pilot didn't want to be more than 50 miles from land at any one time :) Anyone understand aeronautical navigation enough to comment? *I flew Singapore Airlines - it was so good I fear I've been forever spoiled for travel by any other airline. We were on an Airbus rather than a 747. It's really cool to have video on demand in economy - not to mention economy seating that's almost as good as business seating on United Airlines. Thankfully Singapore Airlines is a member of the Star Alliance so my frequent flyer points are added to my normal United account. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
Francisco gives a correct explanation - a straight line on a flat map is not the shortest route. This page gives an explanation ( http://plus.maths.org/issue7/features/greatcircles/[^] ). Also, if you look at the map shown on this page, you can see that a flight from London to Alaska would go almost directly over the North Pole, but when you think about it in terms of Latitude, it doesn't make much sense since London and Alaska are both at a lower latitude than the North pole. ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
