|
So what causes this effect Phil?
http://th01.deviantart.net/fs46/200H...y_lordfein.jpg I've had the same effect with some pictures on my iPhone, but not others. |
Rolling shutter.
Some cameras don't address all the pixels at once, reading them out sequentially, usually top to bottom. This is most clearly visible on things like in webcams, cellphones, stills cameras that also shoot video, and the like, but also some higher end and broadcast cameras to a lesser extent. This is a particularly lovely diagrammatic demonstration of why it happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17PSgsRlO9Q Many broadcast and other higher-end cameras don't do it quite as badly as that, but things like cellphones often do, especially at high shutter speeds (where fast moving objects aren't blurred, which can mask the effect). It can cause other problems with brief or fast-moving phenomena, such as "flash banding" caused by muzzle flashes from weapons fire or xenon strobes that are visible for only part of the frame, as here, with photographic flashguns. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachme...orizflash2.jpg Objects moving horizontally can end up looking like this: http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/Train_2.jpg P |
Have you forgotten Bluff Cove et al so soon? |
Smokescreen or a probe?
Originally Posted by Wig Wag
(Post 8876923)
From Air Vice Marshal Dennis Allison:
. . . the Defence Secretary’s recent statements about interception of Russian bombers and “a clear and present danger” to the Baltic states are questionable. First, why draw attention to the activity of Russian aircraft in international airspace around the United Kingdom (and over the Baltic Sea) when such flights have been going on without incident for over 40 years? Secondly, the two Baltic States with a significant Russian-speaking population are protected by Nato. President Vladimir Putin will not start the Third World War unless the leaders of these two states follow the example of the Ukrainian president and decide to subdue their Russian-speaking subjects with artillery, tanks and aircraft. . . . Russian planes do regularly fly to remote geographical areas and will continue to do so. This is required for personnel training and to verify aircraft capabilities. All flights are carried out in strict accordance with international regulations. Flights of Russian military aircraft are often accompanied by jets from Nato countries and their partners. This is ordinary practice, and the level of public attention on the latest incidents in the vicinity of British airspace is overblown. Military activity by Nato aircraft at Russian borders is far more intense, having doubled since early 2014 and reaching 3,000 sorties that year. By way of comparison, Russian reconnaissance aircraft carried out just over 200 sorties over the Baltic Sea area from March to December 2014, compared to 125 over the same period in 2013. The growing disparity between the actual situation and the official rhetoric of some Western leaders is not helpful for restoring trust, which is probably the main victim of the current crisis in relations between Russia and the West. |
Norway to restructure military in response to Russian 'aggression' | World news | The Guardian
The Norwegians have also observed that there have been bigger and more diverse groups of Russian planes flying by, including more heavy bombers, like the Tu-95 ‘Bear’, the Tu-160 ‘Blackjack, and the Tu-22 ‘Backfire’. On occasion those bombers have extended their training runs along the western coast of Norway and over then either the Atlantic or the North Sea. |
Rolling shutter. |
|
The woman in Cornwall that claims she saw a Tu-95 at low level on the 18th February is still not happy! :ugh:
But Sue, 45, of Bodmin, Cornwall, has now expressed her anger at David Cameron's denial that the aircraft ever flew over British soil and is adamant about what she saw. She said: "I am 100 per cent sure of what it was and I would stake my life on it. "I live in Cornwall and we see a lot of military aircraft around. But this was like nothing I had seen before. "It is bizarre to hear the government publicly denying something that I witnessed with my very own eyes. "I know David Cameron is lying. I saw the Russian bombers not only on UK airspace - but flying in-land. "They were flying really low through the St Mawgan valley and around Cornwall. I am angry the government is denying this. I saw the damn things myself. "I am not an imaginative person in that way. I know what I saw - and I saw the Russian bombers flying over UK soil." Sue said she had her driving lesson between 12.30 and 2pm and saw it on several occasions. She said: "They were very distinctive. It was clearly not a commercial aeroplane or any kind of military aircraft we have seen around here before. "But this morning when we saw it on the news both Claire (driving instructor) and myself instantly recognised it. "The valley is a couple of miles inland at least. Considering UK airspace is 20 miles out to sea I have no doubt about what I am saying." Sue's driving instructor Claire Brazil, from St Austell, Cornwall, said: "I am not an expert but they did look out of the ordinary for Cornish airspace. We leant up to have a look, they were definitely inland, not over the coast." It gets worse! Have a look at the comments section? Another witness has popped up. This time the Bear was being escorted by two Typhoons south of Newquay Golf Club! :) Chipgolfer | February 20 2015, 8:11PM Cameron is lying- the 'bear' definitely flew over Cornwall, not at low level though as reported. Myself and approx 50 others witnessed an incredibly loud aircraft being so closely escorted by two jets that at first we thought it was a refuelling exercise. We were at Newquay Golf Club at approx 10.50am when a thunderous roar started. Not uncommon as fairly close to what was RAF St. Mawgan but on looking up and to the south, we saw the silver jet at quite a height( I'd say around 15000-18000 feet with two typhoons literally within touching distance. |
TU 95 in British Airspace
The claims of these people were outside of the actual QRA scramble and intercept. Classic case of people misidentifying the mil traffic in the region and jumping to the wrong conclusions after the Tu-95 news broke. |
DIKASTES - are you suggesting that the Bears were inside the 12 mile limit?
|
Using terms like "British Airspace" is unhelpful.
Have the Bears flown within the UK FIR? Certainly, there is nothing to stop them doing so, and they have been doing that for 40+ years. Have they penetrated UK Territorial Airspace? Not as far as we know, unless you know something different. |
Dikastes,
That would have resulted in a diplomatic incident and the Russian Ambassador would certainly have been summoned. RAF jets were scrambled to escort Russian bombers spotted off the coast of Cornwall, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed. The two Russian bear bombers were flying in international airspace close to the UK on Wednesday afternoon, an MoD spokesman said. Typhoon jets from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire escorted the Russian aircraft out of the UK "area of interest". They did not cross into British sovereign airspace .... "RAF Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon fighter aircraft were launched yesterday after Russian aircraft were identified flying close to UK airspace," an MoD spokesman said. "The Russian planes were escorted by the RAF until they were out of the UK area of interest. At no time did the Russian military aircraft cross into UK sovereign airspace." |
The following image taken 3rd March 2015 apparently at Engels. Nice new air launched cruise missile racks!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_NJHKNUwAAH2Ol.jpg Large image at following Russian website link. ? russianplanes.net ? ???? ??????? From ? russianplanes.net ? ???? ??????? |
Must admit, that's one great looking aircraft. :ok:
And the sound, once heard, cannot be easily forgotten! :) |
Cruise missile racks ?
The cruise missile racks look superimposed on to the photo to me, just a thought, they don't look uniformly spaced either or do I need new glasses ???? PH.
|
zetec2,
Well spotted, you're right - and no, you don't. Danny. |
Three different levels of JPEG compression in that image. So bits have been added. Clever attempt to hide
it by making it look like a screen shot. Close, but no cigar. |
Zetec2,
They do look strange, but is that not due to the light and shape? Racks loaded. Image from a few years ago. http://i46.tinypic.com/2vlwf49.jpg http://i59.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/...27cdfd8e6f.jpg http://cdn.topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2...0210c_orig.jpg |
FIR and sovereign ('national') air space
I'm no expert in this area at all but there a number of countries that claim, unilaterally, that their FIR equates to sovereign airspace. This is based on the proximate International law relating to Continental Shelves and the upwards projection thereof.
Accordingly, the two countries that I am referring to (and anyone in NATO can probably work out which two) frequently have armed stand-offs when military aircraft from their neighbours get airborne and nudge the FIR boundaries. It has led to accidents in the past, especially when the aircraft are supporting surface units exercising their right of innocent passage through particular straits. I foolishly mentioned in discussion with the locals that an FIR boundary wasn't a national boundary; the resultant discussion was rather unpleasant and eventually turned into an anti 'English' rant based on mid 19th century annotations on Admiralty Charts, which have been used to justify each other's national positions. I walked away, shaking my head and murmuring 'Hmmm, that went well, then...' |
I worked with those two countries as well, somewhere in NATO's Southern Region. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
Twice in the 70s I have been on a crew tasked to transit Turkish airspace heading for points east, once on a much looked forward to FEAF ranger to Singapore. On those occasions we got no further than Akrotiri because our NATO ally had refused diplomatic clearance to cross their airspace. What with that, and frequent French ATC strikes, I often used to wonder how our Soviet opposite numbers must have chuckled - can you imagine them asking for diplomatic clearance to overfly Poland, for example?
|
UK airspace
Using terms like "British Airspace" is unhelpful. Have the Bears flown within the UK FIR? Certainly, there is nothing to stop them doing so, and they have been doing that for 40+ years. Have they penetrated UK Territorial Airspace? Not as far as we know, unless you know something different. |
I recall that Libya tried to press the issue of territorial waters and free right of passage in the Gulf of Sirte on two occasions....
Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) Splash two Migs - 1989 |
For purposes of clarity then, Dikastes, perhaps you could explain exactly why my statements are wrong. I'd be most grateful, as I've always thought it's never too late to learn.
Anybody else who can be bothered is welcome to pitch in! |
TTN,
My guess is that he is referring to the ICAO regulations (of which Russia is a signatory) that expressly forbids aircraft flying in this class of controlled airspace without a clearance, RT contact or a squawk. Russia is quite at liberty to fly in international airspace if it files a flight plan and flies in accordance with the AIP, even if it annoys the heck out of the controlling FIR or the host government. It is not entitled to carry out unsafe acts against the international agreements that it has agreed to. Russian military can also fly with 'due regard' but this still carries a responsibility and cannot lead to unsafe acts such as this. :ok: |
Nothing illegal taking place. Many times in the 70s and 80s the Bears crossed civilian airways in the MRSA at FL350-360, if they looked like getting close to a civil flight I'd call ScaTTC/LATTC and point that there was a non squawking pair xx miles in front of my fighters at the same level as their flight XX. "But who's controlling them!" The indignant reply would come. not sure, think it's Moscow Central", I'd reply.
But if you came out to the eastern Mediterranean and the Nicosia FIR you'd find U2s, RC135s, Nimrods, US 6th fleet, Israel F-15s etc all happily doing their own thing. Nearest to a collision was the U-2 that got severely bent flying through Concorde's wake. The Israeli ATC got snidey for a while and starting telling Nicosia about the US/UK flights, so we started telling them about the IAF flights - soon stopped and an agreeable silence fell; tell Nicosia got primary radar and just about had a heart attack. Soon got used to it though and just passed traffic advisories. Nothing new under the sun - and nothing to get shocked at the Russians about. |
"Nearest to a collision was the U-2 that got severely bent flying through Concorde's wake."
lol I've just imagined that, do you have any more info about that incident? |
Mid 70s, Concorde westbound from Bahrain crossing overhead Lebanon around FL600, U2 northbound along coast about FL580. At the time we weren't allowed to call the U2, only monitor for their calls (that changed). Concorde passed Within a couple of miles*. With very small stall margin the U2 departed and severely over stressed recovering. Airframe had to be flown home in a C5 for repair and a replacement flown in.
Comment from the pilot in discussion. "Didn't mind the b*****d was bigger than me, didn't mind he was faster than me - but what pissed me off was the b*****d was above me!"... - but he thought it was a real cool white bird in the black sky. * Memory going, 40 years ago. Can't now remember if it was the shock wave ahead or wake behind. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 8891156)
Nothing new under the sun - and nothing to get shocked at the Russians about.
We live in a time where flying without TCAS is considered unusual; this is verging on madness. Civilian ATC cannot provide a safe service against an aircraft that they may not be able to see. :ok: |
"petulant idiot" ....... best you copy the Americans (and, in my personal experience, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the French etc) into your complaint.
ICAO - smoke screen - International Civil Aviation Organisation. Last time I looked, a TU-95 with a Red Star on the side wasn't a civil aircraft. Nor was the F15 that chose to take a close look at me the other day and, shock horror, failed to comply with the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practises. A quick look at the UK legal framework will tell you that the UK military doesn't have to comply with ICAO SARPS. Some of you guys need to wake up and have a quick look at international law and not a gentlemen's agreement signed at Chicago a few decades back. Sure, its not very clever driving through Class A/B/C without coordination but that is one of the very reasons that the UK and NATO maintain a surveillance infrastructure such that they can identify Pesky Ivan and safely escort him through the skies. Purleeeease don't join the Daily Mail bandwagon and tell professional aviators (especially those who have spent their lifetime dealing with such activities) that this is outrageous, unsafe, frivolous etc. |
International Airspace
Russia is quite at liberty to fly in international airspace if it files a flight plan and flies in accordance with the AIP, even if it annoys the heck out of the controlling FIR or the host government. It is not entitled to carry out unsafe acts against the international agreements that it has agreed to. Russian military can also fly with 'due regard' but this still carries a responsibility and cannot lead to unsafe acts such as this. As far as I can see, the position of the TU 95s, when intercepted by the Typhoons, was in the London FIR, in class C airspace. The UK AIP (Incorporating standards and recommended practices of ICAO), states that when wishing to fly in the London FIR/UIR in class C airspace, then a flight plan is required and communication with ATC & in receipt of an ATC clearance is also required. (See copy of UK AIP below) https://www.flickr.com/photos/167369...n/photostream/ The TU 95 were tracked in the UK FIR/UIR. I have indicated below on a map of the London FIR/UIR, where the Tu 95s and Typhoons were seen. As you can see the track of these TU 95s was well inside the London FIR and in class C airspace (Crossing busy Upper Air Routes used by civil and military aircraft flying over the Atlantic). https://www.flickr.com/photos/167369...n/photostream/ :ok: |
Outside the 12nm territorial limit no international organisation, such as ICAO, or national government, is entitled to prevent free passage by sea, or air, except in so far as they wish to do so by force of arms. FIRs are only applicable to assenting parties.
|
Times have changed. Primary radar is not the prime means for civilian air traffic deconfliction, the volume of traffic has increased and we simply cannot tolerate the mid-air collision risk with some petulant idiot flying through crowded skies not talking or squawking. "there is a big aircraft here, stay clear"! |
Correct. The UK FIRs (London and Scottish) do not indicate or imply any sovereignty over such airspace, at least that outside territorial waters. ICAO signatories agree to provide alerting and flight information services within such airspace and nothing more. Have a look at the FIR boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland; it doesn't follow an international border so who is responsible for what if you're inside the Scottish FIR but over Ireland? Who's going to shoot you down? The answer is that there are numerous bi-lateral agreements such that cross-border civil aviation continues with safety.
Airspace designation - no country has the RIGHT to impose any form of airspace control or restriction outside of international waters. It is common practise to recognise conditions that countries have applied in airspace outside of territorial limits but no one is obliged to comply with such conditions. Someone mentioned "due regard" a little earlier and that is absolutely correct. Get over it - this was not unsafe, there are all sorts of protocols in place to protect the commercial traveller and the only effect is inconvenience. Now, a far more interesting subject is the political intent and implication of such irritable activity. |
ORAC
Outside the 12nm territorial limit no international organisation, such as ICAO, or national government, is entitled to prevent free passage by sea, or air, except in so far as they wish to do so by force of arms. FIRs are only applicable to assenting parties. Each FIR is subdivided into classes of airspace. These classes of airspace have specific rules. A lot of this airspace requires the pilot to communicate with ATC and follow ATC instruction. If you don't do this then there are penalties for non compliance. One of these is finding a Typhoon, fully armed, sitting on your wing! Most countries allow free passage of their FIRs/airspace under the Chicago Convention providing you follow the rules. Them TU 95s did not follow the rules. |
Cows get Bigger
Get over it - this was not unsafe, there are all sorts of protocols in place to protect the commercial traveller and the only effect is inconvenience. What protocols do you refer? TCAS? ATC conflict alert - Just like Überlingen then? If you read carefully what I have written above and understand ATC and airspace, as I do, :8 then it is not safe. := |
An FIR is established in order to provide a flight information and alerting service. FIRs can and do extend into international airspace. However, within each countries FIR there are rules and regulations for flying your aircraft, whether it's a private or commercial flight, a civil or military irrespective of international airspace. Article 3 Civil and state aircraft a) This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft. b) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft........ European Parliament: Motion for a European Parliament resolution on military planes which fly in European air space with their communication systems and transponders switched off and threaten passenger planes |
dikastes
Oh how I laugh. I've been involved in airspace for over 30 years. I've worked in the CAA (DAP) holding responsibility for the coordination of non-standard and unusual aerial activity within the UK FIRs, sat in Europe helping formulate SES, FUA, FABs etc, held numerous operating endorsements as a controller, instructor and examiner and, in my spare time, hold an ATPL plying my wares across Europe and the Middle East.
I'm fully au-fait with ICAO airspace classifications and the international law surrounding the various rules of the air. I'm also well up-to-speed with regards to safety management and how to mitigate activities such as erroneous and un-coordinated activity within CAS. For the last time ICAO only applies to civil aircraft. Now, please accept that you are wrong, wipe away the tears and move on. |
Cows Get Bigger
Oh how I laugh. I've been involved in airspace for over 30 years. I've worked in the CAA (DAP) holding responsibility for the coordination of non-standard and unusual aerial activity within the UK FIRs, sat in Europe helping formulate SES, FUA, FABs etc, held numerous operating endorsements as a controller, instructor and examiner and, in my spare time, hold an ATPL plying my wares across Europe and the Middle East. I'm fully au-fait with ICAO airspace classifications and the international law surrounding the various rules of the air. I'm also well up-to-speed with regards to safety management and how to mitigate activities such as erroneous and un-coordinated activity within CAS. For the last time ICAO only applies to civil aircraft. Now, please accept that you are wrong, wipe away the tears and move on. The TCAS on the aeroplane did not work because the Tu 95 was primary only. ATC did not see the bear on their radar because it was primary only. The Americans, the Germans, the French, the Turkish, the Spanish etc etc, fly their mil aircraft through our airspace and comply with the rules, whether it is talking to a civil or a military controller. So, NO, I cannot accept that I am wrong when it comes to safety, those Russians and you are taking the моча!! Finally, it was very brave of you to admit that you once worked for the CAA (DAP). The way the CAA are dealing with the new Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA) is utterly shambolic!:D PS how do the CAA (You) mitigate activities such as erroneous and un-coordinated activity within CAS? Please let us all know! It would make very interesting reading.:D |
One of the major problems in the world is how few people can recognise and deal with reality. The subsequent problem is how to move forward before they acknowledge how to deal with the real issues rather than their idealistic, unobtainable, solutions. Still, probably makes them feel happier in bed at night....
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.