Science > Abortion > Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2006 10:03:52 AM |
| Object: |
Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
I guess the NeoCons would be happy that their plane was broght down by
a Catholic man instead of a Muslim!
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk1JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2ODgxNDk0JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mw==
Probation for shining laser into airplane
Saturday, February 18, 2006
By CAROLYN FEIBEL
STAFF WRITER
NEWARK -- "A few moments of reckless action in an otherwise blameless
life" is how a federal judge on Friday described an incident in which
a Parsippany man pointed a hand-held laser at a charter aircraft on
its approach to Teterboro Airport, temporarily blinding both pilots.
....
Kevin Heslin, a deacon at Banach's church, the West Hudson Christian
Center in Kearny, said "God's merciful" when the judge sentenced
Banach. Haslin praised the judge for considering the spirit, rather
than the strict letter, of the law.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2271 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures•" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
19 Feb 2006 12:29:45 PM |
|
|
In article <kt4hv1ls7v8smr0gi2g2f5nl5un7kjrlgp@4ax.com>, "Yang, AthD
(h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
I guess the NeoCons would be happy that their plane was broght down by
a Catholic man instead of a Muslim!
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk1JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2ODgxNDk0JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mw==
Probation for shining laser into airplane
Saturday, February 18, 2006
By CAROLYN FEIBEL
STAFF WRITER
NEWARK -- "A few moments of reckless action in an otherwise blameless
life" is how a federal judge on Friday described an incident in which
a Parsippany man pointed a hand-held laser at a charter aircraft on
its approach to Teterboro Airport, temporarily blinding both pilots.
• A distant laser beam has to be looked at for it to cause eye damage.
Were the pilots idiots?
......
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
20 Feb 2006 05:02:18 PM |
|
|
(•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Probation for shining laser into airplane
Saturday, February 18, 2006
By CAROLYN FEIBEL
STAFF WRITER
NEWARK -- "A few moments of reckless action in an otherwise blameless
life" is how a federal judge on Friday described an incident in which
a Parsippany man pointed a hand-held laser at a charter aircraft on
its approach to Teterboro Airport, temporarily blinding both pilots.
• A distant laser beam has to be looked at for it to cause eye damage.
Were the pilots idiots?
No, the guy who was convicted was the idiot (at least, the judge thought
he was an idiot as opposed to a rat).
The account I saw of the incident (some time ago) was that the guy
turned the laser on with it pointing at the plane, causing a problem
for the pilots and giving them no warning. Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
If the pilots can't see outside and can't see the instrument panel,
you have a serious problem that could lead to crash in pretty
short order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures•" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
21 Feb 2006 08:12:12 AM |
|
|
In article <m37j7pvdpq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Probation for shining laser into airplane
Saturday, February 18, 2006
By CAROLYN FEIBEL
STAFF WRITER
NEWARK -- "A few moments of reckless action in an otherwise blameless
life" is how a federal judge on Friday described an incident in which
a Parsippany man pointed a hand-held laser at a charter aircraft on
its approach to Teterboro Airport, temporarily blinding both pilots.
• A distant laser beam has to be looked at for it to cause eye damage.
Were the pilots idiots?
No, the guy who was convicted was the idiot (at least, the judge thought
he was an idiot as opposed to a rat).
• When I see a driver coming at night with his/her high-beam xenon-arc
flamethrower headlamps on high-beam, I temporarily look at the white line
at the right side of the road so that I don't get zapped and I can steer
straight.
The account I saw of the incident (some time ago) was that the guy
turned the laser on with it pointing at the plane, causing a problem
for the pilots and giving them no warning. Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
If the pilots can't see outside and can't see the instrument panel,
you have a serious problem that could lead to crash in pretty
short order.
• Those who are passengers have a problem if the pilots stare at bright
lights. In night time L. A., two police helicopter pilots flew to where
a fixed laser beam was pointing into the sky, and when they arrived at the
location, they hovered until the beam was in the cockpit. When they
returned to the heloport, they claimed they had been blinded and
subsequently applied for disability pay. So if they were "blinded", who
the hell guided them back for a safe landing, the Blessed Virgin Mary?
cheers, Mr./Ms No.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
21 Feb 2006 08:59:31 PM |
|
|
(•R.L.Measures•) writes:
In article <m37j7pvdpq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Were the pilots idiots?
No, the guy who was convicted was the idiot (at least, the judge thought
he was an idiot as opposed to a rat).
• When I see a driver coming at night with his/her high-beam xenon-arc
flamethrower headlamps on high-beam, I temporarily look at the white line
at the right side of the road so that I don't get zapped and I can steer
straight.
The account I saw of the incident (some time ago) was that the guy
turned the laser on with it pointing at the plane, causing a
problem for the pilots and giving them no warning. Assuming this
was a VFR flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser
beam to be a problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out
the windows to keep the plane on course and to look out for other
aircraft.
If the pilots can't see outside and can't see the instrument panel,
you have a serious problem that could lead to crash in pretty short
order.
• Those who are passengers have a problem if the pilots stare at
bright lights. In night time L. A., two police helicopter pilots
flew to where a fixed laser beam was pointing into the sky, and when
they arrived at the location, they hovered until the beam was in the
cockpit. When they returned to the heloport, they claimed they had
been blinded and subsequently applied for disability pay. So if
they were "blinded", who the hell guided them back for a safe
landing, the Blessed Virgin Mary?
And I bet one of the pilots kept his eyes shut during this stunt just
in case.
Since in that case the beam was probably going more or less straight
up and the pilots were looking sideways, it is obviously quite a
different situation from someone on the ground pointing a beam along a
pilot's line of sight while on final approach.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R.L.Measures•" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 04:59:51 AM |
|
|
In article <m3irr8w175.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
In article <m37j7pvdpq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Were the pilots idiots?
No, the guy who was convicted was the idiot (at least, the judge thought
he was an idiot as opposed to a rat).
• When I see a driver coming at night with his/her high-beam xenon-arc
flamethrower headlamps on high-beam, I temporarily look at the white line
at the right side of the road so that I don't get zapped and I can steer
straight.
The account I saw of the incident (some time ago) was that the guy
turned the laser on with it pointing at the plane, causing a
problem for the pilots and giving them no warning. Assuming this
was a VFR flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser
beam to be a problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out
the windows to keep the plane on course and to look out for other
aircraft.
If the pilots can't see outside and can't see the instrument panel,
you have a serious problem that could lead to crash in pretty short
order.
• Those who are passengers have a problem if the pilots stare at
bright lights. In night time L. A., two police helicopter pilots
flew to where a fixed laser beam was pointing into the sky, and when
they arrived at the location, they hovered until the beam was in the
cockpit. When they returned to the heloport, they claimed they had
been blinded and subsequently applied for disability pay. So if
they were "blinded", who the hell guided them back for a safe
landing, the Blessed Virgin Mary?
And I bet one of the pilots kept his eyes shut during this stunt just
in case.
• Chortle. My guess is that neither member of the team stared into the beam.
Since in that case the beam was probably going more or less straight
up and the pilots were looking sideways, it is obviously quite a
different situation from someone on the ground pointing a beam along a
pilot's line of sight while on final approach.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
20 Feb 2006 11:37:07 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Probation for shining laser into airplane
Saturday, February 18, 2006
By CAROLYN FEIBEL
STAFF WRITER
NEWARK -- "A few moments of reckless action in an otherwise blameless
life" is how a federal judge on Friday described an incident in which
a Parsippany man pointed a hand-held laser at a charter aircraft on
its approach to Teterboro Airport, temporarily blinding both pilots.
• A distant laser beam has to be looked at for it to cause eye damage.
Were the pilots idiots?
No, the guy who was convicted was the idiot (at least, the judge thought
he was an idiot as opposed to a rat).
The account I saw of the incident (some time ago) was that the guy
turned the laser on with it pointing at the plane, causing a problem
for the pilots and giving them no warning.
The guy was miles away. The pilots couldn't have had any problem.
Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
It was a commercial flight. Commercial pilots don't operate under VFR.
If the pilots can't see outside and can't see the instrument panel,
It was a low-power laser spread out over several feet by the time
it reached the airplane. The pilots were assholes who decided to make
an example of some poor schmuck.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
21 Feb 2006 09:06:43 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
It was a commercial flight. Commercial pilots don't operate under VFR.
I've been on flights that were commercial in the sense that we paid
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane). In any case,
for IFR flights under VFR conditions, the pilots are still going to
be looking out the plane, if only to scan for other aircraft.
It was a low-power laser spread out over several feet by the time
it reached the airplane. The pilots were assholes who decided to make
an example of some poor schmuck.
My guess is that they simply did their jobs and reported a problem
that could effect other flights, and just losing one's adaption to
the dark could be serious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
21 Feb 2006 11:28:27 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
It was a commercial flight. Commercial pilots don't operate under VFR.
I've been on flights that were commercial in the sense that we paid
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
It was a low-power laser spread out over several feet by the time
it reached the airplane. The pilots were assholes who decided to make
an example of some poor schmuck.
My guess is that they simply did their jobs and reported a problem
that could effect other flights,
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
and just losing one's adaption to
the dark could be serious.
Better not look out of the plane at the runway landing lights.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 01:03:37 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
It was a commercial flight. Commercial pilots don't operate under VFR.
I've been on flights that were commercial in the sense that we paid
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
Nope - you simply said a commerical flight, not a large jet, and a
"commercial pilot" is simply one with a license to take paying passengers.
And, as I pointed out (and you snipped), if the laser was a problem, the
flight would have to have been under VFR conditions and the pilots would
be looking out the windows regardless of whether it was an IFR flight
(which refers to the flight rules, and those do not prohibit pilots
from looking out the window when useful).
It was a low-power laser spread out over several feet by the time
it reached the airplane. The pilots were assholes who decided to make
an example of some poor schmuck.
My guess is that they simply did their jobs and reported a problem
that could effect other flights,
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
How would you know? Where you in the cockpit at the time? A low
powered laser light beam "spread out over a few feet by the time it
reached the plane" would screw up the pilot's night vision and that
would cause a safety problem.
and just losing one's adaption to
the dark could be serious.
Better not look out of the plane at the runway landing lights.
Guess again: planes are designed so that the lights are positioned so
they won't blind the pilot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 01:38:13 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) writes:
Assuming this was a VFR
flight (it would have to be clear outside for the laser beam to be a
problem), the pilots would be nominally looking out the windows to
keep the plane on course and to look out for other aircraft.
It was a commercial flight. Commercial pilots don't operate under VFR.
I've been on flights that were commercial in the sense that we paid
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
Nope - you simply said a commerical flight, not a large jet, and a
Now you're just playing games.
If the flight was at night then they don't do VFR. If it was during
the day then the laser would have had no effect.
It was a low-power laser spread out over several feet by the time
it reached the airplane. The pilots were assholes who decided to make
an example of some poor schmuck.
My guess is that they simply did their jobs and reported a problem
that could effect other flights,
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
How would you know?
Pay attention
1) Low power laser
2) A distance of 1-3 miles.
3) A beam spread to several feet.
Where you in the cockpit at the time?
Is that supposed to be relevant?
A low
powered laser light beam "spread out over a few feet by the time it
reached the plane" would screw up the pilot's night vision and that
would cause a safety problem.
No it wouldn't.
and just losing one's adaption to
the dark could be serious.
Better not look out of the plane at the runway landing lights.
Guess again: planes are designed so that the lights are positioned so
they won't blind the pilot.
Still brighter than the laser pointer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 02:03:19 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
Nope - you simply said a commerical flight, not a large jet, and a
Now you're just playing games.
Actually, you are the guy playing games.
If the flight was at night then they don't do VFR. If it was during
the day then the laser would have had no effect.
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
It was a low-power laser spread out over several feet by the time
it reached the airplane. The pilots were assholes who decided to make
an example of some poor schmuck.
My guess is that they simply did their jobs and reported a problem
that could effect other flights,
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
How would you know?
Pay attention
1) Low power laser
2) A distance of 1-3 miles.
3) A beam spread to several feet.
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Where you in the cockpit at the time?
Is that supposed to be relevant?
Yes. See above.
A low
powered laser light beam "spread out over a few feet by the time it
reached the plane" would screw up the pilot's night vision and that
would cause a safety problem.
No it wouldn't.
and just losing one's adaption to
the dark could be serious.
Better not look out of the plane at the runway landing lights.
Guess again: planes are designed so that the lights are positioned so
they won't blind the pilot.
Still brighter than the laser pointer.
Not the light reaching the cockpit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 12:09:32 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
Nope - you simply said a commerical flight, not a large jet, and a
Now you're just playing games.
If the flight was at night then they don't do VFR. If it was during
the day then the laser would have had no effect.
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
How would you know?
Pay attention
1) Low power laser
2) A distance of 1-3 miles.
3) A beam spread to several feet.
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35 watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a city.
Where you in the cockpit at the time?
Is that supposed to be relevant?
Yes.
So you blindly accept the claims of the pilots.
Wth your unquestioning acceptance of claims made by authorities you'd
have made a good nazi soldier.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 12:48:39 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
Nope - you simply said a commerical flight, not a large jet, and a
Now you're just playing games.
If the flight was at night then they don't do VFR. If it was during
the day then the laser would have had no effect.
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
How would you know?
Pay attention
1) Low power laser
2) A distance of 1-3 miles.
3) A beam spread to several feet.
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35 watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a city.
Where you in the cockpit at the time?
Is that supposed to be relevant?
Yes.
So you blindly accept the claims of the pilots.
Wth your unquestioning acceptance of claims made by authorities you'd
have made a good nazi soldier.
Not "would have", did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lurker" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 04:12:07 PM |
|
|
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns97726E15D2279SD@70.169.32.36...
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
for it that were definitely VFR (in a small plane).
Equivocation.
Nope - you simply said a commerical flight, not a large jet, and a
Now you're just playing games.
If the flight was at night then they don't do VFR. If it was during
the day then the laser would have had no effect.
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
"Problem"?!? There was no "problem".
How would you know?
Pay attention
1) Low power laser
2) A distance of 1-3 miles.
3) A beam spread to several feet.
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35 watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a city.
Where you in the cockpit at the time?
Is that supposed to be relevant?
Yes.
So you blindly accept the claims of the pilots.
Wth your unquestioning acceptance of claims made by authorities you'd
have made a good nazi soldier.
Not "would have", did.
LOL HEhehehehe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 09:58:01 PM |
|
|
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
[mostly replying to rfischer]
Yes. They can do that quite well in VFR conditions, even when
following IFR flight rules (there isn't a rule that says they can't
look out the window).
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35 watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a city.
Why do you think the pilots would have any incentive to lie? Oh, and
BTW, the light from a laser pointer is focused, so any spreading is
due to diffraction limits. That is not true of streetlights (which
generally have a reflector on them that points downwards).
It isn't like the guy wasn't given a fair trial either.
So you blindly accept the claims of the pilots.
Wth your unquestioning acceptance of claims made by authorities you'd
have made a good nazi soldier.
Not "would have", did.
Huh? Given a choice between the opinion of some guy pontificating
on usenet versus the statement of someone who was there, which would
you believe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 11:41:19 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
[mostly replying to rfischer]
Yes. They can do that quite well in VFR conditions,
Not what I asked.
Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be attempting a VFR
landing at night?
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35 watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a city.
Why do you think the pilots would have any incentive to lie?
Because they want to make an example of someone.
Oh, and
BTW, the light from a laser pointer is focused, so any spreading is
due to diffraction limits.
Wrong again. 1) Laser pointers are not focused because the beam from
a laser diode is reasonably well collimated. 2) The beam divergence
of a laser pointer is typically around 1.2mRad (0.07 degrees for you
mathematically semi-literate). Over a distance of one to two miles
that makes for a beam about ten feet across.
It isn't like the guy wasn't given a fair trial either.
"Plead guilty and you'll get probation. Take it to trial and
you risk years in prison."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
23 Feb 2006 02:08:12 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
[mostly replying to rfischer]
Yes. They can do that quite well in VFR conditions,
Not what I asked.
Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be attempting a VFR
landing at night?
Basically yes. With a few exceptions (large jets with very expensive
electronics) a plane won't land itself. Even on an IFR flight, once
under the lowest cloud layer, a pilot will not be using instruments
to land the plane. He may use navigation aids, the airspeed indicator,
altimeter, etc., to follow instructions (e.g.,to contact air traffic
control when he reaches a particular location) but he'll fly the
airplane just like he would on an VFR flight.
This is for two reasons. First, the actual landing - touching down -
is done without instruments. The transition from IFR flight to VFR is
not particularly easy, particularly if done very suddenly, so the
pilot will start that as soon as feasible. Second, in crowded
airspaces (and this includes the area of New Jersey where the incident
occurred), it is very important for the pilot to be looking for other
aircraft to avoid collisions, and it is important regardless.
What you are confusing is IFR rules with how you fly the airplane.
You might also want to look up IFR minimums - there is a minimum
visibility and cloud ceiling below which landing is not allowed.
That is because the navigation aids only get the plane near the
runway, and the pilot then lands the plane just as he would
without instruments. Because it is not always possible to land,
under IFR rules a pilot has to have an alternate airport and
enough fuel to reach it plus hang out for some additional time
without landing.
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35 watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a city.
Why do you think the pilots would have any incentive to lie?
Because they want to make an example of someone.
Idiotic conspiracy theory - you are dealing with a safety issue.
Oh, and
BTW, the light from a laser pointer is focused, so any spreading is
due to diffraction limits.
Wrong again. 1) Laser pointers are not focused because the beam from
a laser diode is reasonably well collimated. 2) The beam divergence
of a laser pointer is typically around 1.2mRad (0.07 degrees for you
mathematically semi-literate). Over a distance of one to two miles
that makes for a beam about ten feet across.
Nope, you don't know what you are talking about. The beam is focused
(not with lenses, but naturally due to how a laser works). Do you
understand that you cannot get a perfectly collimated beam out of a
fixed-sized aperture because of diffraction? Do you even have a clue
as to how a laser works?
It isn't like the guy wasn't given a fair trial either.
"Plead guilty and you'll get probation. Take it to trial and
you risk years in prison."
You mean they let him plea bargin? That's pretty much standard
procedure. If he plead guilty in a case like this it was probably
because he *was* guilty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
23 Feb 2006 11:37:16 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
[mostly replying to rfischer]
Yes. They can do that quite well in VFR conditions,
Not what I asked.
Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be attempting a VFR
landing at night?
Basically yes.
*****.
With a few exceptions (large jets with very expensive
electronics) a plane won't land itself.
So what?
Even on an IFR flight, once
under the lowest cloud layer, a pilot will not be using instruments
to land the plane.
3000 feet up and a couple miles from landing at night and he's not
going to use his instruments?!?
He may use navigation aids, the airspeed indicator,
altimeter, etc., to follow instructions
Q.E.D.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
23 Feb 2006 09:05:12 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be attempting a VFR
landing at night?
Basically yes.
*****.
Can't hand the truth, can you!
With a few exceptions (large jets with very expensive
electronics) a plane won't land itself.
So what?
The "so what" is that you can't actually land using instruments under
those conditions.
Even on an IFR flight, once
under the lowest cloud layer, a pilot will not be using instruments
to land the plane.
3000 feet up and a couple miles from landing at night and he's not
going to use his instruments?!?
Nope - not if he can see the runway clearly (and I've been in a plane
that's landed at night at an airport with no capabilities for an
instrument approach).
Oh, just FYI, I've been on a flight in a small plane going from Oregon
to the Bay Area, at night, and it was a VFR flight. Basically you see
a series of towns strung out in a row more or less following I-5 past
Mount Shasta (which is a bit higher than 14000 ft) and then you have
steep terrain on one side of you and flat terrain on the other south
of that point. The lights from the Bay Area are hard to miss (as is Mt
Diablo). It wasn't an instrument landing either.
A commercial pilot is perfectly capable of landing a plane at night
from "3000 feet up and a couple of miles from landing", as you put it,
without intstruments as long as he is flying under VFR conditions. If
he can clearly see the runway and ground, it will be easy for him.
He may use navigation aids, the airspeed indicator,
altimeter, etc., to follow instructions
Q.E.D.
Nope - they don't use those to land the plane or even fly the plane
under VFR conditions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
26 Feb 2006 02:35:58 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be attempting a VFR
landing at night?
Basically yes.
*****.
Can't hand the truth, can you!
With a few exceptions (large jets with very expensive
electronics) a plane won't land itself.
So what?
The "so what" is that you can't actually land using instruments under
those conditions.
Ah! You're a moron who doesn't know the difference between IFR and
having the plane do the entire landing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
27 Feb 2006 01:08:52 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
The "so what" is that you can't actually land using instruments under
those conditions.
Ah! You're a moron who doesn't know the difference between IFR and
having the plane do the entire landing.
Let's just say that I'm *not* the moron who thinks you need to do
an instrument approach in clear enough weather for a plane thousands
of feet above the ground to see the ground quite a few miles away.
BTW, have you ever actually flown an aircraft or landed one at night?
Do you know that runways have lights visible miles away that are
perfectly adaquate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
27 Feb 2006 01:15:03 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
The "so what" is that you can't actually land using instruments under
those conditions.
Ah! You're a moron who doesn't know the difference between IFR and
having the plane do the entire landing.
Let's just say that I'm *not* the moron who thinks you need to do
an instrument approach in clear enough weather for a plane thousands
of feet above the ground to see the ground quite a few miles away.
Neither am I.
BTW, have you ever actually flown an aircraft or landed one at night?
Do you know that runways have lights visible miles away that are
perfectly adaquate.
I didn't ask what was POSSIBLE, you halfwitted cretin. I asked about
the usual and common procedure for landing a commercial jet.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
27 Feb 2006 09:11:03 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
The "so what" is that you can't actually land using instruments under
those conditions.
Ah! You're a moron who doesn't know the difference between IFR and
having the plane do the entire landing.
Let's just say that I'm *not* the moron who thinks you need to do
an instrument approach in clear enough weather for a plane thousands
of feet above the ground to see the ground quite a few miles away.
Neither am I.
Then you shouldn't have posted your comment about questioning why
someone might not be on instruments at an altitude of 3000 feet while
a few miles from an airport (with good visibility and the plane below
any clowds - otherwise the laser would not have been visible.
BTW, have you ever actually flown an aircraft or landed one at night?
Do you know that runways have lights visible miles away that are
perfectly adaquate.
I didn't ask what was POSSIBLE, you halfwitted cretin. I asked about
the usual and common procedure for landing a commercial jet.
Hey moron, pilots landing commercial jets may be technically operating
under IFR flight rules, but they are not going to be doing an
instrument approach under those conditions. Are you so daft as to
think that a commercial pilot is going to risk having to tell someone
that a contributing factor to a collision with a small plane or a near
miss was that the pilot was doing an instrument approach in perfectly
clear weather instead of looking for other aircraft? Get real.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
27 Feb 2006 11:34:35 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTW, have you ever actually flown an aircraft or landed one at night?
Do you know that runways have lights visible miles away that are
perfectly adaquate.
I didn't ask what was POSSIBLE, you halfwitted cretin. I asked about
the usual and common procedure for landing a commercial jet.
Hey moron, pilots landing commercial jets may be technically operating
under IFR flight rules,
How about that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
27 Feb 2006 11:43:03 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTW, have you ever actually flown an aircraft or landed one at night?
Do you know that runways have lights visible miles away that are
perfectly adaquate.
I didn't ask what was POSSIBLE, you halfwitted cretin. I asked about
the usual and common procedure for landing a commercial jet.
Hey moron, pilots landing commercial jets may be technically operating
under IFR flight rules,
How about that.
How about what you dishonestly snipped:
Hey moron, pilots landing commercial jets may be technically
operating under IFR flight rules, but they are not going to be
doing an instrument approach under those conditions. Are you
so daft as to think that a commercial pilot is going to risk
having to tell someone that a contributing factor to a
collision with a small plane or a near miss was that the pilot
was doing an instrument approach in perfectly clear weather
instead of looking for other aircraft? Get real.
You can always tell when someone with little integrity loses an
argument - the guy invariably snips something midsentence in an
attempt to make it look like something altogether different was said.
You were, after all, ranting about how some idiot who shined a laser
at an aircraft wasn't doing anything all that bad, when in fact the
pilots would have been looking out the window to fly the plane and
check for other traffic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 10:12:51 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
news:m364n6hgpo.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43fca8dc$0$58081
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Sigh. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing a plane at night in
VFR
conditions (adequate visibility, etc.) without using instruments.
Tell us: Is it usual procedure for a commercial pilot to be
attempting a VFR landing at night?
[mostly replying to rfischer]
Yes. They can do that quite well in VFR conditions, even when
following IFR flight rules (there isn't a rule that says they can't
look out the window).
Don't second guess the people who were there.
Why not? Should a guy be convicted if they were lying? Why should
everybody blindly accept their word when it doesn't even appear to
make any sense? You're trying to say that dim light from a 0.35
watt
laser pointer is more of a threat than the dozens of 100 watt lights
lining the runway or the thousands of 150 watt streetlights of a
city.
Why do you think the pilots would have any incentive to lie? Oh, and
BTW, the light from a laser pointer is focused, so any spreading is
due to diffraction limits. That is not true of streetlights (which
generally have a reflector on them that points downwards).
It isn't like the guy wasn't given a fair trial either.
So you blindly accept the claims of the pilots.
Wth your unquestioning acceptance of claims made by authorities
you'd
have made a good nazi soldier.
Not "would have", did.
Huh? Given a choice between the opinion of some guy pontificating
on usenet versus the statement of someone who was there, which would
you believe?
Certainly not a nazi soldier...nor you No One Home Upstairs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 10:29:54 PM |
|
|
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
Certainly not a nazi soldier...nor you No One Home Upstairs.
Oh, so you are yet another usenet idiot who can't hold an intelligent
conversation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 10:34:02 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
news:m3slqag0o3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
Certainly not a nazi soldier...nor you No One Home Upstairs.
Oh, so you are yet another usenet idiot who can't hold an intelligent
conversation?
You mean like you, No One Home Upstairs? Hardly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 10:46:45 PM |
|
|
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
news:m3slqag0o3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
Certainly not a nazi soldier...nor you No One Home Upstairs.
Oh, so you are yet another usenet idiot who can't hold an intelligent
conversation?
You mean like you, No One Home Upstairs? Hardly.
Looks like you are yet another poster with a 7th grade mentality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Oops, NJ Catholic Man Sentenced for Blinding Airplane Pilots With Laser |
22 Feb 2006 10:49:55 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
news:m31wxuheh0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
news:m3slqag0o3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> writes:
Certainly not a nazi soldier...nor you No One Home Upstairs.
Oh, so you are yet another usenet idiot who can't hold an intelligent
conversation?
You mean like you, No One Home Upstairs? Hardly.
Looks like you are yet another poster with a 7th grade mentality.
Then with a little luck and lots of studying it should only take you about
five more years to catch up to my mentality, No One Home Upstairs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
