Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2018 May 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 22

FAA regulations

Note: I am NOT looking for legal advice here, and indeed I would NEVER contemplate doing the stuff listed below, because I know that often the penalty for these things is death by plane crash; however, with that said, and assuming that the pilot in question survives, what are the legal penalties for: (1) knowingly taking off into IMC without an instrument flight plan (from an uncontrolled airport); (2) entering Class B airspace without clearance; (3) flying through the same Class B airspace in IMC without an instrument flight plan; and (4) landing at a controlled airport without clearance when the weather conditions are below minimums for any published instrument approach at that airport? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:EDA1:77AF:46A8:7B5 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) website has a section on Regulations & Policies that you should consult. DroneB (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it does say that all these things are prohibited, but it doesn't specify the penalties for violation, and that's what I wanted to know -- if you break these rules on purpose (assuming you survive), do you get fined, do you get your license suspended, or what? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:1C8F:3273:DD79:5DE0 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This page might have some answers.[1] Keep in mind that they could be flexible. Like if you do an unauthorized buzz in restricted air space, they might shoot you down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

While not an RS, this source [2] mentions the possibility of a licence suspension. Most sources agree that you should seek legal advice and file a report to ASRS [3] as it generally can't be used against you but may reduce the chances of action. (There are some other stories here [4] of people who got away without penalty for minor unintended violations of a class B airspace.) You mention 'survives' so I presume that means you're not referring to a UAS but this case [5] involved a $200k settlement which started off as a $1.9 million case for 69 violations [6]. Also are you sure the FAA website doesn't give some hint at penalties? I'm not sure if it's there but 46301 [7] lays out a bunch of them although most of the maximums listed are possibly for minor things and you'd need to work out precisely what regulation/s you're violating to match it to 46301. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've already outlined the violations in my OP, but I'll do this again by the numbers: my fictional aerial hooligan "celebrates" getting his instrument rating by violating Part 91.129 (landing at a Class D airport without clearance, and also making missed approaches to 2 other Class D airports and one major Class B airport without clearance), 91.131(a)(1) (blatantly entering Class B airspace without clearance), 91.173 (taking off into IMC without a flight plan), 91.175(c) and (d) (making a full-stop landing from a Cat 1 ILS approach when Cat 2 minimums apply), 91.175(f)(2)(I) (taking off in a single-engine plane when visibility is only 1/4 mile), 91.183 (not talking to ATC), and 91.189(a)(3) (making a Cat 2 ILS approach and landing in a plane which doesn't have all the required equipment). Question: Just how much trouble is he in? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:282E:2527:EEB:F8B9 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Using lots of mirrors can you see to infinity?

Given a theoretically perfect set of mirrors reflecting into each other and a perfect set of eyes, can you see infinity?

What do you mean by "infinity"? I suppose that light could bounce back and forth infinitely many times between perfect mirrors, but that would take an infinite amount of time. (This should have been asked at the science desk.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

An infinity mirror effect viewed between the mirrors

See Infinity mirror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, because light has a speed limit, and so it takes infinite time to appear to be at infinity. So you are not going to see back further than the time to travel back to when the mirror was built. Also things look smaller and smaller as they are reflected more times, so it will get harder to see. Lastly consider that the object and you are going to block some of that light, so you will probably just see reflections of yourself, the light source or any other objects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Regardless of the reflective purity of the mirrors, the images should be reduced to such small sizes that they becomes unobservable, essentially instantly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why exactly do they appear smaller after each reflection? Is there an article about this phenomenon? If it's just perspective, they should never become fully unobservable, just harder to distinguish from the rest of the images. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I've figured it out. It's the diverging rays that aren't exactly perpendicular to the mirrors that do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what it means to "see infinity", but if there is such a thing, I suspect Douglas Adams had it right: "Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity—distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless." Matt Deres (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What you see when you look at the mirror is the surface of the mirror. Everything else is an illusion; you just think you can see further that the surface but you really can't. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the light really reflects off the mirror and activates the cells in your retina. The image in a mirror is no more an illusion than any other image your brain makes. --Jayron32 17:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

With perfect alignment and perfect mirrors, in classical physics the light should just go back and forth forever, right? Is there any weird, obscure quantum mechanical effect that says otherwise? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, because even in classical physics, the second law of thermodynamics still applies at some level; you can't do work forever, and some energy of even a massless photon is to be lost to entropy. --Jayron32 03:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

But I specified perfect mirrors (i.e. no energy loss from reflection). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to throw away fundamental laws of the universe at will, why stop there. Let's just have magic do it all, and forget actually using actual science.--Jayron32 04:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A "perfect" mirror would have to reflect all the light that hits it, which would mean it couldn't be made of a normal substance. It would have to be "solid" somehow, with no gaps even at the atomic level, and hence no light penetrating it in any way. Even then, you couldn't see every possible reflection, as each one would be somewhat smaller than the previous one. The light could go bouncing along on its merry way... but what would happen when the reflected image was smaller than a photon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Go out at night and look up. You can see forever. No mirror needed.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)