| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
|
12-01-2005, 05:05 PM
|
#1
|
|
|
Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
All flight in an airline is IFR.
The pilot observes the ILS instrument during approach and could not be
bothered by any laser directed at the plane.
No view of the ground is needed.
The government is going crazy again.
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 05:00 AM
|
#2
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:05:40 -0800, WayneHilton@webtv.net wrote:
>All flight in an airline is IFR.
>
>The pilot observes the ILS instrument during approach and could not be
>bothered by any laser directed at the plane.
>
>No view of the ground is needed.
>
>The government is going crazy again.
If your vision has been dazzled you can't observe the ILS
instruments.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 05:23 AM
|
#3
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
Oh, really? At least one corporate jet pilot disagrees with you.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl...03&cid=11270886
/Don
WayneHilton@webtv.net wrote:
> All flight in an airline is IFR.
>
> The pilot observes the ILS instrument during approach and could not
be
> bothered by any laser directed at the plane.
>
> No view of the ground is needed.
>
> The government is going crazy again.
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 05:23 AM
|
#4
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
Oh, really? At least one corporate jet pilot disagrees with you.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl...03&cid=11270886
/Don
WayneHilton@webtv.net wrote:
> All flight in an airline is IFR.
>
> The pilot observes the ILS instrument during approach and could not
be
> bothered by any laser directed at the plane.
>
> No view of the ground is needed.
>
> The government is going crazy again.
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 07:11 AM
|
#5
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
<WayneHilton@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9854-41E4B024-268@storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net...
> All flight in an airline is IFR.
>
> The pilot observes the ILS instrument during approach and could not be
> bothered by any laser directed at the plane.
>
> No view of the ground is needed.
>
> The government is going crazy again.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your final conclusion, but the
fact that all airline flight is IFR (actually, anything that happens
in Class A airspace, which pretty much means "anything
above 18,000 feet" is conducted under instrument rules and
with the cooperation of those nice people in air traffic control...)
does NOT imply that all landings would be ILS. Visual
approaches and landing at the end of an IFR flight are very
common. (For that matter, "ILS," specifically, refers to only
one form of instrument approach, and in the vast majority of
ILS approaches the final landing would still be done visually.
Completely automated landings remain relatively rare if the
entire number of IFR flights - which includes a lot more than
just the "big boys" - is considered.
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 07:13 AM
|
#6
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
<dwgsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105550620.764713.152500@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Oh, really? At least one corporate jet pilot disagrees with you.
>
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl...03&cid=11270886
And also please note carefully that the pilot in question correctly noted
that his concern is NOT with "$15 consumer lasers," but rather only
with the possibility that something much more powerful is being used.
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 07:15 AM
|
#7
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sslau0ldgjartkm6hgfnhiisa4n6sm7m23@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:05:40 -0800, WayneHilton@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >All flight in an airline is IFR.
> >
> >The pilot observes the ILS instrument during approach and could not be
> >bothered by any laser directed at the plane.
> >
> >No view of the ground is needed.
> >
> >The government is going crazy again.
>
> If your vision has been dazzled you can't observe the ILS
> instruments.
True, but there's still some basically wrong information here. You
DO NOT fly per the "ILS instrument" all the way to the ground.
At a certain pre-specified point, the instrument's indications are no
longer sufficient, and you either MUST switch to visual references to
complete the landing or abort the landing (a "missed approach").
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005, 08:29 PM
|
#8
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
> True, but there's still some basically wrong information here. You
> DO NOT fly per the "ILS instrument" all the way to the ground.
wrong. you follow the needles to ground. "Trust thy instruments."
There are many reasons you do this but you *definitely* have
to do it. Just did it myself tonight in a P28A twice in fact
in light IFR conditions.
> At a certain pre-specified point, the instrument's indications are no
> longer sufficient, and you either MUST switch to visual references to
> complete the landing or abort the landing (a "missed approach").
that's incorrect. The Glide slope and Localizer (both make up course
guidancee on an ILS Apch) are good for the front course and the Glide
slope good until the touchdown markers. this is how Cat III autolands
are possible. The autopilot will follow the needles *all the way*
down to the ground. I know there is other equipment required and used.
What you are correct about is other than on autolandings, the
last part of the approach you are definitely following the instruments
AND keeping a visual outside the cockpit. It simply makes sense. You
have to follow the instruments to be in the right position /
heading / air speed but you are also trying to land on a runway. it
only makes sense to look out the window.
Lastly, the only time lasers would be useful were in visual conditions.
In these conditions, often ATC will clear an aircraft for the "visual
approach." This means the pilots on a see-and-avoid separation between
aircraft. Therefore, they better be looking out the window.
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2005, 07:07 AM
|
#9
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
"G. Sylvester" <gs1104usenet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4kqFd.10840$5R.8300@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
> > True, but there's still some basically wrong information here. You
> > DO NOT fly per the "ILS instrument" all the way to the ground.
>
> wrong. you follow the needles to ground. "Trust thy instruments."
> There are many reasons you do this but you *definitely* have
> to do it. Just did it myself tonight in a P28A twice in fact
> in light IFR conditions.
You are telling me that you are flying what is effectively a Cat-III P-28?
:-)
I fully agree with the "trust thy instruments"; however, I believe that
my original comments remain valid - for the vast majority of IFR flights,
there still comes a point at which you must have established visual
contact with the runway. I don't see how that could possibly happen
without looking outside. My quibble is with the "all the way to the
ground" statement. We may just be disagreeing on what that
means, but "all the way to the ground" implies to me that I would
be able to not look outside the cockpit AT ALL until after the
wheels contact the runway. In other words - a landing in zero-zero
conditions would be possible, safe, and legal for any ILS-equipped
aircraft and qualified pilot. I can't agree with that, given the
requirements of 91.175 (c) (3) - which describes in detail those
things that you need to be able to SEE before you can continue a
descent below DH/MDA.
> that's incorrect. The Glide slope and Localizer (both make up course
> guidancee on an ILS Apch) are good for the front course and the Glide
> slope good until the touchdown markers. this is how Cat III autolands
> are possible. The autopilot will follow the needles *all the way*
> down to the ground. I know there is other equipment required and used.
Sure - and you will notice that my original comments noted that there
ARE situations in which properly-equipped aircraft can autoland.
However, I maintain that this exception does not apply to the majority
of flights conducted under IFR.
> What you are correct about is other than on autolandings, the
> last part of the approach you are definitely following the instruments
> AND keeping a visual outside the cockpit.
That, I believe, is what I was trying to say. Sorry if it was unclear.
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005, 10:07 AM
|
#10
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
> You are telling me that you are flying what is effectively a Cat-III P-28?
> :-)
aren't all small planes with a tiny fan up front Cat-IIIc approved? ;-)
> however, I believe that
> my original comments remain valid - for the vast majority of IFR flights,
> there still comes a point at which you must have established visual
> contact with the runway.
now that I'm getting closer to getting my IFR ticket, you are 100%
correct. In fact at DH (decision height) for Cat-I approaches you
have to have at least one of the items from FAR 91.175 insight before
descending to 100 above TDZE. So you are right in some regard.
Once you have the runway environment insight, you don't ignore the
needles. You stay on the needles as long as possible because in low
visibility conditions, you can't trust your eyes but you can trust your
needles.
Nevertheless, in true IFR conditions, lasers won't penetrate very
far through the clouds.
BTW, apparently very few aircraft are Cat-III approved. Cat-III
approaches do NOT have a decision altitude nor a minimum visibility.
> I don't see how that could possibly happen
> without looking outside. My quibble is with the "all the way to the
> ground" statement. We may just be disagreeing on what that
> means, but "all the way to the ground" implies to me that I would
> be able to not look outside the cockpit AT ALL until after the
> wheels contact the runway.
incorrect. I think we both implied and inferred the wrong thing. You
said at some point you transition to visual. In the terminal area, in
visual conditions, you are flying both visually and by instruments.
That's why it is extremely busy. You end up doing both. I believe you
said you transition to visual at some point. Generally that might be
when you cross over the runway threshold and landing is guaranteed.
Otherwise you are both visual and on the instruments. Even on an ILS
in non-perfect conditions you stay on the instruments to the threshold.
>In other words - a landing in zero-zero
> conditions would be possible, safe, and legal for any ILS-equipped
> aircraft and qualified pilot. I can't agree with that, given the
> requirements of 91.175 (c) (3) - which describes in detail those
> things that you need to be able to SEE before you can continue a
> descent below DH/MDA.
this is more for rec.aviation.ifr.  .....I think we are in complete
agreement just we implied and inferred the wrong thing. I presume
you are at least an ASEL-IA so we probably agree to a point otherwise
we'd both have bigger problems.
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005, 10:13 AM
|
#11
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
"G. Sylvester" <gs1104usenet@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>BTW, apparently very few aircraft are Cat-III approved. Cat-III
>approaches do NOT have a decision altitude nor a minimum visibility.
In addition to the initial cost of dual landing systems, there's a significant
maintenance cost involved in maintaining the aircraft's Cat III certification.
Most aircraft owners are unwilling to take that cost on for the few times when
Cat I won't do.
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005, 10:59 AM
|
#12
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
"G. Sylvester" <gs1104usenet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VABGd.2438$8Z1.1304@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m...
> now that I'm getting closer to getting my IFR ticket, you are 100%
> correct. In fact at DH (decision height) for Cat-I approaches you
> have to have at least one of the items from FAR 91.175 insight before
> descending to 100 above TDZE. So you are right in some regard.
> Once you have the runway environment insight, you don't ignore the
> needles. You stay on the needles as long as possible because in low
> visibility conditions, you can't trust your eyes but you can trust your
> needles.
OK, I think now we HAVE cleared up what appears to
be a case of mutual misunderstanding.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled group...:-)
Bob M.
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005, 11:59 AM
|
#13
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
> In addition to the initial cost of dual landing systems, there's a significant
> maintenance cost involved in maintaining the aircraft's Cat III certification.
> Most aircraft owners are unwilling to take that cost on for the few times when
> Cat I won't do.
yea, I know. I read the requirements for Cat II which only gets
you a 100' lower DA and those are enormous. I didn't read the Cat III
but I'm sure those are even greater. Also the cost of keeping the
pilots current and proficient is quite large as they are required to do
a minimum number of Cat III approaches every 180 days. I doubt they do
that many Cat III as there aren't even that many airports that have
them.
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005, 12:14 PM
|
#14
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
> OK, I think now we HAVE cleared up what appears to
> be a case of mutual misunderstanding.
>
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled group...:-)
hehehe.
Now back to the original discussion, back to the lasers,
the other day I bought a red laser as a toy for my cat (cat
as in meow, not cateory although my next cat might be named
Trea (as in Cat III ;-) ). Well I brought the laser to screw
with my CFII. Goes with both of our sense of humors.
Anyway, I shined it at an airplane sitting in a tie-down about
1000' away. It was a red spot about a foot in diameter. I don't
think it could cause much harm when the plane is up at 2000' AGL.
On short final inside the FAF, I would get quite concerned as most of
the time you really don't need distractions when there should be a
sterile cockpit whether in IMC or VMC. I'm also sure stronger
laser while might not permanently blind a pilot but it should
could cause him temporary (10-15-30 seconds) blindness which is
dangerous especially if simultaneous visual approaches are in use
such as at LAS or SFO (28L / 28R).
So most of the time it is no big concern just like we've seen. But
with the right laser and the right location I personally think it could
be very unnerving. I still think they should persecute this guy
to the fullest extent possible. He knew it was wrong. He did it
anyways and then he lied about it. Call it a sacrificial lamb but the
guy is simply wrong. Kind of like most people thought hijackings were
very bad but no one ever thought the possibility of 9/11. With lasers
the potential of something bad happening is there. Now we should try to
stop it.
Granted I'm a 5-6 weeks away from my IA checkride but I do approaches
at 90 KIAS. The big metal often crosses the FAF at 160-180 knots and
slowing to touchdown at 120-140 knots. That is pretty damn fast to
have morons on the ground "playing."
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005, 02:29 PM
|
#15
|
|
|
Re: Lasers interfering with airplane navigation
"G. Sylvester" <gs1104usenet@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Anyway, I shined it at an airplane sitting in a tie-down about
>1000' away. It was a red spot about a foot in diameter.
Similar experience here. My impression is that the manufacturers have opened up
(or intentionally defocused) the lens on consumer pointers in the past few
years.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:31 AM.
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The Travel Forum
|
|
|
|
