I've been making my livelihood as a fixed-wing pilot for nineteen years and I've never heard of this hypothetical conveyor-belt method of flight initiation. Mr. Smith is correct that this is not fodder for cockpit cruise-conversation.

I can't imagine why one would want to spin up the tires, wheels and bearings in the opposite direction of travel (if I understand this correctly) only to risk/ensure their destruction. After reading this thought-problem over a few times, I still don't know if I fully understand the concept. A diagram of the conveyor belt scheme might be helpful in ensuring correct interpretation of the premise of this so-called brain-teaser.

All I know is that the lifting, stabilizing and control surfaces of the airplane must have sufficient airflow to do what they were designed to do. This comes from sustained forward motion through the airmass surrounding the airplane, provided by a means of propulsion attached to the airplane if a level cruise altitude is desired (gliders use gravity--and rising air when available--for their "power" once launched by some other means of propulsion). What do wheels have to do with anything, anyways?

Some airplanes have floats or a hull-shaped fuselage ("sea planes") or use skis to facilitate movement on the snow-covered ground. So, if the spinning of wheels is essential to this "conundrum", I'm lost.

The only conveyor-belt scenario that makes any physical sense to me is to use it as a sort of catapult devise, where with the wheel brakes locked, the belt begins to move the airplane forward at sufficient speed (lots), allowing it to lift away and forward under its own power once minimal flying speed (through the air) is attained, allowing the wheels to remain stationary relative to the belt, obviating the need for wheels. Stunt pilots have done a similar trick for years using small airplanes and moving vehicles, and this idea was behind the launching and recovery of small airplanes from and to 1930's-era US Navy dirigibles.

As one who was subject to this procedure as a newborn in 1964 USA, probably with no more consultation with my parents than a simple statement of intent by the pediatrician, I find it sad and pathetic of the author to allow his parents to threaten disowning his helpless newborn son. For such a sentiment, they deserved not having their grandson-- regardless of 6,000 years of tradition. Where was the consideration for his child when he caved-in to their hysterics for their own selfish sake? Regardless of their deeply ingrained cultural and religious traditions, they'd have gotten over it-- or not. Frankly, it's not their business. The child is permanently stuck with the father's ill-considered decision, with no choice for himself in the future, say, when/if he decides for himself to join the Jewish faith. As for me, while I have no particular traumatic memory or feelings of regret and loss (as far as I can tell) I'll never know what I'm missing.

The pilot should have practiced this maneuver before subjecting the dog to a potentially injurious return to zero-G, or better yet, not have done this in the first place. If you can't smoothly transition from 0 to 1 G, don't commit animal cruelty (hey, that rhymes! --easy to remember). The telling aspect, besides seeing the poor dog get slammed back against the interior, is the pilot's headset being partially dislodged from his (somewhat empty) head.

--A professional aviator, airplane and dog owner.

Also/or:

A pad of sticky notes, appropriately sized for that special open place on the panel (or the weather radar screen) for clearances and ATIS, random thoughts/notions/whims, shopping lists, etc.

Also handy for miscellaneous stick-it purposes (am I the only one to think of this?), a slim pack of artist's putty. Handy (and entirely reusable) for temporarily sticking or securing most anything (TOLD card, good-luck fetish, mini-portrait of a flight-suited George W. Bush, etc.) to anywhere. Find it at any artist-supply store.

I should of thought of the Rubbermaid (Tupperware?, hmmm) container for my expensive, case-less Sennheiser jet-headset (why doesn't Sennheiser provide a case for their precious audiophile headsets? Aren't the Germans supposed to think of everything?). As an air-ambulance pilot, I've discovered that a disused Pacific Emergency Products of Kelowna B.C. intubation kit case (I think that's what it's for) made of padded Cordura is perfect for the essential David Clark H10-13X headset.

--a former poorly-to-moderately-not-so-well-paid Lear-60 SIC, now a pretty well-paid Beech C90"B" PIC and another proud member of The Colbert Nation™.

I'm looking forward to more of your clear-headed, insightful, humorous and clever come-backs, Mr. Anderson. You floor me with your invective; I am rendered weak-kneed and retort-less in the face of your elegant, yet insidious commentary.

I like Chomsky, too.