Skywatcher Part II: "Mapping The Unknown"

[Dave51c]

They should just buy 10 of them, and give one to everyone there.

And 10 good quality fluid head tripods to go with them. And the training required to track a subject at the long end of the zoom without it leaving the frame all the time. You know, like most professional camera operators do at an air show.

 

[elvenwear]

That's a 1200mm f/5.6 lens from Canon

The modern version is this

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-1200mm-f8l-is-usm/

Easily rentable for pennies on the helicopter budget.

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-rf-1200mm-f8l-is-usm
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-rf-800mm-f5.6l-is-usm

1200 / 5.6 = 214, so the front element would be around 8 inches in diameter (maybe a little oversized a bit to avoid vignetting). From the forced perspective of that shot, the front element appears to be approaching a meter in size. Other shots of the lens from other websites show it appears to be eight inches.

Eight inches of optical crown glass would be very expensive.

 

[elvenwear]

It's a great lens, but what are they currently working with? How much better will their images be? They are currently posting things like:

Every time you double the resolution capability of your photographic hardware, you increase the available size of the LIZ by 4 (2x in the vertical and 2x in the horizontal directions). You could call this the LIZ squared rule. The better the hardware, the more unidentified objects you can capture.

So in answer to your question, the good hardware will create a greater number of ambiguous images.

 

[Calter]

There being a bigger area for objects to be captured doesn't necessarily equate to a greater number of ambiguous images. As has been pointed out before, the further away things are the harder it is to spot them in the first place, so you can't point your sensors towards them in the first place. It also works with an assumption of an homogenous distribution of objects across the sky.

If for example they are mostly seeing balloons, and they can only spot balloons for up to a few miles with the naked eye or radar, then a camera that is good enough to reliably pick up balloons for up to a few miles would decrease the number of false positives.

If I had to guess, their current resolution allows them to capture ambiguous images that are at the edges of their detection range, meaning a greater resolution would mostly reduce the number of ambiguous images until they increase their range of detection. (This is assuming they aren't the ones releasing the UFOs, in which case their range of detection is whatever they want)

 

[FatPhil]

Every time you double the resolution capability of your photographic hardware, you increase the available size of the LIZ by 4 (2x in the vertical and 2x in the horizontal directions). You could call this the LIZ squared rule. The better the hardware, the more unidentified objects you can capture.

So in answer to your question, the good hardware will create a greater number of ambiguous images.

Were it just a boundary, it would still be linear; however, it's an annulus, so a square law indeed kicks in. However, opportunities for corroborating and disambiguating evidence also scale quadratically using the same reasoning. In particular, the opportunities for *good* supporting evidence also scale quadratically. However, we're not really [seeing] such corroboration ramp up, which implies that the LIZ objects aren't things out there that can just be photographed, they're things in people's perceptions instead.

EDIT: ^ grammar

 

[elvenwear]

Were it just a boundary, it would still be linear; however, it's an annulus, so a square law indeed kicks in. However, opportunities for corroborating and disambiguating evidence also scale quadratically using the same reasoning. In particular, the opportunities for *good* supporting evidence also scale quadratically. However, we're not really [seeing] such corroboration ramp up, which implies that the LIZ objects aren't things out there that can just be photographed, they're things in people's perceptions instead.

EDIT: ^ grammar

I left out the most crucial component: The sensitivity of hardware to light. While the resolution capability overall has not improved much the years (because of the exponential costs of making ever larger telescopes), the light sensitivity of the sensors themselves has improved. While the resolution governs the size of the LIZ, the the improved sensitivity of the digital sensors also increased the number of videos that can be generated (as does the ubiquity of cell phones).

 

[FatPhil]

I left out the most crucial component: The sensitivity of hardware to light. While the resolution capability overall has not improved much the years (because of the exponential costs of making ever larger telescopes), the light sensitivity of the sensors themselves has improved. While the resolution governs the size of the LIZ, the the improved sensitivity of the digital sensors also increased the number of videos that can be generated (as does the ubiquity of cell phones).

Better optics on their own can't address the problem of there being increased noise in a more distant signal (c.f. depth cueing), which to first approximation should be exponential (consider a cylinder between you and what you're viewing - at each unit length along it, you'll lose the same ratio of your signal, and gain the same quantity of not-signal). So twice as good doesn't mean twice as far, it's more like an extension by one more halving-distance. Image processing (for example, stacking) in modern systems might get some of that back, but the maths isn't as simple as the attenuation calculation, so I don't know how it would affect your effective range.

 

[elvenwear]

Better optics on their own can't address the problem of there being increased noise in a more distant signal (c.f. depth cueing), which to first approximation should be exponential (consider a cylinder between you and what you're viewing - at each unit length along it, you'll lose the same ratio of your signal, and gain the same quantity of not-signal). So twice as good doesn't mean twice as far, it's more like an extension by one more halving-distance. Image processing (for example, stacking) in modern systems might get some of that back, but the maths isn't as simple as the attenuation calculation, so I don't know how it would affect your effective range.

I probably should not have mentioned the telescopes, as I appear to have muddied the issue. You are also right that I failed to mention the signal to noise ratio. Let me restate.

Objects in the LIZ are distant relative to their size (which is why we cannot resolve them as other than spheres or tic-tacs) and are thus more likely to be faint due to the inverse square law (factoring in the signal to noise ratio) as you mention above. So the amount of light needed to capture a pixel as distinct from noise in an image will define the number of reports of events in the LIZ by ufologists. In other words, as the sensors improve, more objects get picked up in videos at the same resolution.

I suspect the FLIR video is a good example of this in action. Sensitive military hardware can pick up birds or balloons that would be otherwise undetectable on other hardware.

 

[DarkLight]

The pilot says that the collective was "frozen". This would prevent the helicopter from going up or down, and it would prevent it from flying a curve without losing altitude.

Article:

To increase or decrease overall lift requires that the controls alter the angle of attack for all blades collectively by equal amounts at the same time, resulting in ascent, descent, acceleration and deceleration.
View attachment 79028

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls

Helicopter pilot comment on "stuck collective":

Article:

fortunately it's rather rare - in 40 years of flying, I've never heard of it actually happening.

Source: https://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/topic/6801-stuck-collective/

The examples mentioned in that thread involve something stuck under the lever, which would prevent it from going down, but not from moving up.

Obviously the pilot could just fake a stuck collective by pretending to try to move the lever, but not actually moving it.

Which helicopter model is this?

If @Dave Beaty still has contact to that helicopter pilot, maybe he could ask about the malfunction?

The pilot says that the collective was "frozen". This would prevent the helicopter from going up or down, and it would prevent it from flying a curve without losing altitude.

Article:

To increase or decrease overall lift requires that the controls alter the angle of attack for all blades collectively by equal amounts at the same time, resulting in ascent, descent, acceleration and deceleration.
View attachment 79028

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls

Helicopter pilot comment on "stuck collective":

Article:

fortunately it's rather rare - in 40 years of flying, I've never heard of it actually happening.

Source: https://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/topic/6801-stuck-collective/

The examples mentioned in that thread involve something stuck under the lever, which would prevent it from going down, but not from moving up.

Obviously the pilot could just fake a stuck collective by pretending to try to move the lever, but not actually moving it.

Which helicopter model is this?

If @Dave Beaty still has contact to that helicopter pilot, maybe he could ask about the malfunction?

Not my wheelhouse and I may very well be missing something, but wouldn't an incident like this require a report to the NTSB?
If that's the case, it should be on file.

 

[Mendel]

Not my wheelhouse and I may very well be missing something, but wouldn't an incident like this require a report to the NTSB?
If that's the case, it should be on file.

Why? There was no damage and no injury.

It might have been reported to ASRS at NASA, but that system is confidential, so you wouldn't find the incident?

 

[DarkLight]

Why? There was no damage and no injury.

It might have been reported to ASRS at NASA, but that system is confidential, so you wouldn't find the incident?

The requirements for submitting FAA aircraft accident and incident reports are not based on whether or not there was damage or injury.
I found this:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap7_section_7.html

Aircraft Accident and Incident Reporting

1. Occurrences Requiring Notification. The operator of an aircraft must immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Field Office when:
   1. An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur:
      1. Flight control system malfunction or failure.
      2. Inability of any required flight crew member to perform their normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness.
      3. Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes.
      4. Inflight fire.
      5. Aircraft collide in flight.
      6. Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.
      7. For large multi‐engine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):
         1. Inflight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back‐up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air‐driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;
         2. Inflight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;
         3. Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and
         4. An evacuation of aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
   2. An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

7-7-2 (1) would seem to directly apply in this incident, and these records are public.

-Claiming that an aircraft completely lost control surface response for any period of time is a serious matter. If I'm reading the regs correctly, the event should be reported, and common sense dictates an immediate grounding of the aircraft until a cause can be assessed, and such an event would become part of the aircrafts mandatory permanent maintenance logs.

 

[Mendel]

7-7-2 (1) would seem to directly apply in this incident, and these records are public.

You're referring to 7-7-2. a. 1. (a) Flight control system malfunction or failure?

If it was the collective lever getting tangled up, would that rise to "malfunction or failure"?

If the flight control system was examined later on the ground and found to bd functioning, it's likely the "Giant Hand Illusion" that Mick mentioned earlier:

Article:

They therefore, suggest that the GH phenomenon is the result of a postural reflex, an uncontrollable reflex response to the psychological and physiological conditions affecting the pilot prior to and during the incident. The pilot believes that he is pulling back on the control column when he is actually pushing it.

Source: https://indjaerospacemed.com/the-giant-hand-phenomenon-a-case-report/

Since there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, it wouldn't get reported to the NTSB. Spatial Disorientation happens when it happens.

 

[DarkLight]

You're referring to 7-7-2. a. 1. (a) Flight control system malfunction or failure?

If it was the collective lever getting tangled up, would that rise to "malfunction or failure"?

If the flight control system was examined later on the ground and found to bd functioning, it's likely the "Giant Hand Illusion" that Mick mentioned earlier:

Article:

They therefore, suggest that the GH phenomenon is the result of a postural reflex, an uncontrollable reflex response to the psychological and physiological conditions affecting the pilot prior to and during the incident. The pilot believes that he is pulling back on the control column when he is actually pushing it.

Source: https://indjaerospacemed.com/the-giant-hand-phenomenon-a-case-report/

Since there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, it wouldn't get reported to the NTSB. Spatial Disorientation happens when it happens.

Good point.

You're referring to 7-7-2. a. 1. (a) Flight control system malfunction or failure?

If it was the collective lever getting tangled up, would that rise to "malfunction or failure"?

If the flight control system was examined later on the ground and found to bd functioning, it's likely the "Giant Hand Illusion" that Mick mentioned earlier:

Article:

They therefore, suggest that the GH phenomenon is the result of a postural reflex, an uncontrollable reflex response to the psychological and physiological conditions affecting the pilot prior to and during the incident. The pilot believes that he is pulling back on the control column when he is actually pushing it.

Source: https://indjaerospacemed.com/the-giant-hand-phenomenon-a-case-report/

Since there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, it wouldn't get reported to the NTSB. Spatial Disorientation happens when it happens.

Yes, 7-7-2. a. 1. (a).
My bad, a little formatiing issue there.

So, if they don't report it as an actual loss of control of the aircraft, then they are tacitly admitting that there was no actual mechanical seizure of the controls by entity or entities unknown, and if they did believe that such a thing had actually happened they would still be required to report the incident.

I think it comes down to a just a few possiblities.
First, the incident happened and they have either reported it or they haven't. Regardless of whether they actually believe that operation of the control surfaces were taken over or frozen by aliens, the incident seems to fall under mandatory reporting regulations.
The fact that the aircraft was inspected and no issues relating to loss of control were found isn't relevant-they are claiming that the incident happened and reporting seems to be mandatory regardless of whether the cause is ever identified.

A second possibility (and I'm sure that there are more) is that the control incident is a fabrication, and this also is problematic. The recording of a loss of control of the aircraft due to unknown causes, albeit even informally as in a YTube presentation, needs to become a permanent part of the history of the aircraft maintenance and inspection record.
A falsified report, in this instance could have serious repercussions.

I am inclined to believe the 2nd scenario, but I admit that after viewing all of the Skywatcher material, I've become 90% convinced that just about 100% of their material is fake. It's a reality t.v pitch for a show that leans heavily to the woo side, and these shows are essentially created in an editing bay with little regard for actual reality.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents and worth every penny..