Poet, Activist, Parkinson's sufferer and Granny (79) gets jailed for 6 months.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

God, your ignorance is frightening. Imagine parts of the airfield not being visible to ATC. The IAA would never allow it.


I wonder what happens when it's foggy?

What happens when it is foggy? How is the runway kept safe for operations? You still haven't told us who's reponsibility that is.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

What happens when it is foggy? How is the runway kept safe for operations? You still haven't told us who's reponsibility that is.

I'm not providing a free online aviation course.
Why don't you tell me what happens when weather or obstacles obscure parts of the runway from view at airports? Do they shut down because ATC can't see them?

kupus

Ms Darcy was the only member of Aosdana not to stand and pay her respects as a show of solidarity after the young PSNI officer Ronan Kerr was murdered and instead said that a vote should have been taken on the matter. Clearly a woman of principles

wow just wow, what a woman. it just gets better and better what is coming out about her.

Im just after finding out shes an armchair republican. peacenik my a$$.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'm not providing a free online aviation course.
Why don't you tell me what happens when weather or obstacles obscure parts of the runway from view at airports? Do they shut down because ATC can't see them?

Ok, you won't tell us whose reponsibility runway safety is
Lets try another angle:

You said that the ATCO was only asked to testify about seeing the protesters because

he just happened to see then

yet he swore under oath about specific times and that

no-one was airside

If I just happened to be looking out a window (on duty too, which would surely ask questions about my concentration on my job) would I be willing to swear to what I saw and what the specific times where? I don't think any rational person would do that if it wasn't in someway part of my duties.

and if, as bumper234 (he has opted out of answering) he had no business looking in that direction, leaving the protesters secret access) why the f*** was he and noting times?#

Call me dense, or stupid if that makes you happy (they seem to like trite labels in here), but please answer the actual questions I am asking or we'll just leave it.

ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'm not providing a free online aviation course.
Why don't you tell me what happens when weather or obstacles obscure parts of the runway from view at airports? Do they shut down because ATC can't see them?

I think at this stage we should just leave it. Happyman is like a 6 year old child who thought something stupid like he invented the high five ot such and no one ever bothered to correct him. as such he's gone through life believing it. Now he refused to listen to anyone who tries to tell him differently and will use every thing he can to look right.

I have a few more stories about the stupidity of protestors in galway. I got a load of abuse one day for my racist and disgusting tshirt. It was for the band Dead Kennedys and obviously mocking racist people. Similarly I got abuse one day I stopped into the occupy camp and had a copy of The Searchers that I'd just bought as a gift. Had to listen to a tirade about how racist and evil the star Charlton Heston was. I didn't bother to correct him as he went off on his tirade stating how Heston hated blacks and repeatedly marchrd in white supremist rallies. When he was done, I first told him that John Waybe starred and while Wayne did have some very outdated views he was respected for the way he treated people he met and worked with. I then had to tell him that Heston was an outspoken supporter of civil rights and marched at many, including a number with Marthin Luther King. It must be nice to be one of the protestors, they live in such an insulated and ridicolous manner that they're pretty much the Daily Mail only even less informed.

tfitzgerald

What she did was wrong. She broke the law. And her age should not be taken into account she full well knew what she was doing

tfitzgerald

Darko's post above is well written. And very true

lemansky

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ok, you won't tell us whose reponsibility runway safety is

As Professor Plum said, this is not an aviation course. This is freely available information that you could find in two seconds if you so wished. It isn't some opinion or obscure fact that he needs to provide a source for.

Granted, you don't have a background in aviation, but it is YOU who is wading in and shouting the odds so the onus is on you to educate yourself to the required standard. Others won't spoonfeed you the bread and butter facts, as you don't listen. Them refusing to waste their time in this manner should not be interpreted by you as some form of victory.

Happyman42

tfitzgerald wrote: »

What she did was wrong. She broke the law. And her age should not be taken into account she full well knew what she was doing

Correct, and she isn't complaining, she has sarcrificed her liberty to serve a purpose.

bumper234

lemansky wrote: »

As Professor Plum said, this is not an aviation course. This is freely available information that you could find in two seconds if you so wished. It isn't some opinion are obscure fact that he needs to provide a source for.

Granted, you don't have a background in aviation, but it is YOU who is wading in and shouting the odds so the onus is on you to educate yourself to the required standard. Others won't spoonfeed you the bread and butter facts, as you don't listen. Them refusing to waste their time in this manner should not be interpreted as you as some form of victory.

But we all know that's EXACTLY how he will proclaim it, jeez it's days like this when i miss old hippy :rolleyes:

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

I think at this stage we should just leave it.

All I am attempting to do is show that these people made this protest as safe as possible (and succeeded btw)
Part of that is to show that by accessing the runway at the gate they did was in the knowledge that ATC would see them.

Professorplum (who is by his own inference, a pilot I think), will not say who is responsible or jointly responsible for runway integrity.
bumper234 has been caught out bull****ting by me and by what Professorplum had to say.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

All I am attempting to do is show that these people made this protest as safe as possible (and succeeded btw)
Part of that is to show that by accessing the runway at the gate they did was in the knowledge that ATC would see them.

Professorplum (who is by his own inference, a pilot I think), will not say who is responsible or jointly responsible for runway integrity.
bumper234 has been caught out bull****ting by me and by what Professorplum had to say.

Utter crap. Neither of the protestors who entered the runway let anyone in authority know. They left it to s third party to do so which is reckless and shows that they had no intention of making it as safe as possible. You are distorting every fact presented to you and when you can't you ignore it and move discussion away.

Happyman42

lemansky wrote: »

As Professor Plum said, this is not an aviation course. This is freely available information that you could find in two seconds if you so wished. It isn't some opinion or obscure fact that he needs to provide a source for.

Granted, you don't have a background in aviation, but it is YOU who is wading in and shouting the odds so the onus is on you to educate yourself to the required standard. Others won't spoonfeed you the bread and butter facts, as you don't listen. Them refusing to waste their time in this manner should not be interpreted by you as some form of victory.

I have researched and posted some docs, here is another one from the FAA which seems to me to imply that ATC is the go to authority for moving on the actual airfield.
If you are the body vested in giving these permissions to move would YOU not think that awareness of what was happening on the ground was neccessary and that you would HAVE to and be DUTY BOUND to regularly observe the airfield?
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/ground_vehicle_guide_proof_final.pdf

Skylinehead

Happyman42 wrote: »

bumper234 has been caught out bull****ting by me

Only in your fantasy world. The rest of us think the same about you

Happyman42

Skylinehead wrote: »

Only in your fantasy world. The rest of us think the same about you

So you agree with all this then?


What bumper234 has said so far:
'a heavily laden plane was attempting to land'
ATC couldn't see that gate because of the 'treeline'
ATC would not have been looking at that Gate because all the activity would have been at the other end of the runway.
You agreed with others that one of the protesters deliberately dropped an object in an effort to take down a plane.


I would like a yes or no answer, otherwise....

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you agree with all this then?


What bumper234 has said so far:
'a heavily laden plane was attempting to land'
ATC couldn't see that gate because of the 'treeline'
ATC would not have been looking at that Gate because all the activity would have been at the other end of the runway.
You agreed with others that one of the protesters deliberately dropped an object in an effort to take down a plane.


I would like a yes or no answer, otherwise....

Wouldn't we all :rolleyes:

jimboblep

Happyman42 wrote: »

All I am attempting to do is show that these people made this protest as safe as possible (and succeeded btw)
Part of that is to show that by accessing the runway at the gate they did was in the knowledge that ATC would see them.

Professorplum (who is by his own inference, a pilot I think), will not say who is responsible or jointly responsible for runway integrity.
bumper234 has been caught out bull****ting by me and by what Professorplum had to say.

"The safest way possible " your words
Would have been not to enter an active runway

Skylinehead

Happyman42 wrote: »

'a heavily laden plane was attempting to land'

Quote please?

ATC couldn't see that gate because of the 'treeline'
ATC would not have been looking at that Gate because all the activity would have been at the other end of the runway.

These I don't care about. How are they relevant?

You agreed with others that one of the protesters deliberately dropped an object in an effort to take down a plane.

Who said that?

Anyway, I'd like to ask you a question. What if a plane in a real emergency were to come in for a landing at Shannon? It's not inconceivable, especially as it's the first port of call for planes coming in over the Atlantic. Did the protesters take that into account?

Happyman42

jimboblep wrote: »

"The safest way possible " your words
Would have been not to enter an active runway

Absolutely, but that isn't possible if you are an adherent to the Nurenberg Principle (quoted earlier) or when undertaking any protest.
As I said earlier in the thread, imagine for a second a world where people had only protested when it was 100% safe to do so. The requirement in any peaceful protest is to do all in your power to make sure it is 100% safe, and I think these people did. As eveidenced by the fact that on 2 occassions it was.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, but that isn't possible if you are an adherent to the Nurenberg Principle (quoted earlier) or when undertaking any protest.
As I said earlier in the thread, imagine for a second a world where people had only protested when it was 100% safe to do so. The requirement in any peaceful protest is to do all in your power to make sure it is 100% safe, and I think these people did. As eveidenced by the fact that on 2 occassions it was.

But they didn't make it safe as possible. They didn't seem to account for human error or inform anyone of their intentions.


One thing I've never understood about these protestors is that they are 100% against any type of war or military retaliation. It's a ridicolous way to view the world and I've heard many of the anti-war protestors in galway state that Britian and America should not have entered either world war.

jimboblep

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, but that isn't possible if you are an adherent to the Nurenberg Principle (quoted earlier) or when undertaking any protest.
As I said earlier in the thread, imagine for a second a world where people had only protested when it was 100% safe to do so. The requirement in any peaceful protest is to do all in your power to make sure it is 100% safe, and I think these people did. As eveidenced by the fact that on 2 occassions it was.

There was a hundred different ways to protest that would have satisfied the nurenburg principle without increasing the danger to others
For instance as has been mentioned earlier and i didnt want to drag into this conversation she would have been fully aware of the power of a hungerstrike from her own experience in the north
This would have drawn far more attention and far less derision, than her as you have already conceded unsafe actions
It is only in hindsight you are claiming it was safe just because a disaster didnt happen does not mean a situation was not created where it could of hence the term endangered
Put yourself in danger its your choice put innocent people in danger thats unnaceptable

Happyman42

Skylinehead wrote: »

Quote please?

I'm sorry, don't have time to trawl back through the thread atm.
He said it, I quoted it a number of times and he hasn't denied that he said it.

These I don't care about. How are they relevant?

Relevant because bumper was attempting to say that ATC couldn't and didn't have a view of the gate, firstly because they would be looking at far end of runway and secondly because of the trees.

Who said that?

kupus (I think) said it and bumper234 elaborated and agreed.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you a question. What if a plane in a real emergency were to come in for a landing at Shannon? It's not inconceivable, especially as it's the first port of call for planes coming in over the Atlantic. Did the protesters take that into account?

Yes, the plan was to be seen, have a very short protest, and to be arrested. They didn't resist arrest so if a scenario happened that a plane absolutely needed to land they didn't envisage a problem.
You clearly see them coming off the runway when they don't get a reaction, minimising the danger to any traffic approaching.
The goal of the protest was TO BE SEEN and be arrested.

Skylinehead

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm sorry, don't have time to trawl back through the thread atm.
He said it, I quoted it a number of times and he hasn't denied that he said it.

Well if you can't back it up, then there's nothing to argue.

Relevant because bumper was attempting to say that ATC couldn't and didn't have a view of the gate, firstly because they would be looking at far end of runway and secondly because of the trees.

How is that relevant to the thread in general, I mean?

Yes, the plan was to be seen, have a very short protest, and to be arrested. They didn't resist arrest so if a scenario happened that a plane absolutely needed to land they didn't envisage a problem.
You clearly see them coming off the runway when they don't get a reaction, minimising the danger to any traffic approaching.
The goal of the protest was TO BE SEEN and be arrested.

How can they take an emergency situation into account when they have no idea an emergency situation could even be occurring? It could happen before they even realise it, jets are quite fast you know.

Anyway, there's nothing more to be said. Absolutely anybody with the evidence to hand has said that they were a danger, it's only you that's arguing against that evidence. I think I'll trust the relevant experts instead of your ramblings about who can see what, even it's irrelevant crap.

blackwhite

Happyman42 wrote: »

All I am attempting to do is show that these people made this protest as safe as possible (and succeeded btw)
Part of that is to show that by accessing the runway at the gate they did was in the knowledge that ATC would see them.

Professorplum (who is by his own inference, a pilot I think), will not say who is responsible or jointly responsible for runway integrity.
bumper234 has been caught out bull****ting by me and by what Professorplum had to say.

There's only been one poster spouting BS on this thread, and it certainly hasn't been bumper234

kupus

NO it wasnt bumper it was me who said that maybe they dropped the foreign object to take down the airplane.
She is a known republican terrorist sympathizer so it is no stretch of the imagination to say she could be capable of taking down a plane to further her aims, after all her heros the ira have killed innocents in the past.

I also said that due to the drugs in her system she might be inclined to think that she might be following in the steps of the murderer and all round terrorist scumbag Che Guevara by striking out at a plane landing or taking off in a bid of murder/suicide martyrdom.

Cmon happy get with it, shure didnt you post exactly what i said to some liberal website.
Im sure it went down well with the champagne intelligentsia there.

Anyway how come you never answered my question in relation to apple and microsoft being responsible for more wars than usa and uk combined in the last few years. And how come you dont boycott those goods and stores that profit on the back of these wars?
But I think i know the answer already.

bumper234

kupus wrote: »

NO it wasnt bumper it was me who said that maybe they dropped the foreign object to take down the airplane.
She is a known republican terrorist sympathizer so it is no stretch of the imagination to say she could be capable of taking down a plane to further her aims, after all her heros the ira have killed innocents in the past.

I also said that due to the drugs in her system she might be inclined to think that she might be following in the steps of the murderer and all round terrorist scumbag Che Guevara by striking out at a plane landing or taking off in a bid of murder/suicide martyrdom.

Cmon happy get with it, shure didnt you post exactly what i said to some liberal website.
Im sure it went down well with the champagne intelligentsia there.

Anyway how come you never answered my question in relation to apple and microsoft being responsible for more wars than usa and uk combined in the last few years. And how come you dont boycott those goods and stores that profit on the back of these wars?
But I think i know the answer already.

Probably sitting in Starbucks right now typing out his reply on an Ipad

I can't be the only one who has imagined herself and the other fella holding their banner on the runway on the runway as a plane comes in for landing. Imagine it, the two idiots there as the planes front wheel goes through the banner but rather than year in half it carries it down the runway with dumb and dumber attached. I smile as I picture it and no doubt they'd end to being sucked into the engine.

kupus

kupus wrote: »

NO it wasnt bumper it was me who said that maybe they dropped the foreign object to take down the airplane.
She is a known republican terrorist sympathizer so it is no stretch of the imagination to say she could be capable of taking down a plane to further her aims, after all her heros the ira have killed innocents in the past.

I also said that due to the drugs in her system she might be inclined to think that she might be following in the steps of the murderer and all round terrorist scumbag Che Guevara by striking out at a plane landing or taking off in a bid of murder/suicide martyrdom.

Cmon happy get with it, shure didnt you post exactly what i said to some liberal website.
Im sure it went down well with the champagne intelligentsia there.

Anyway how come you never answered my question in relation to apple and microsoft being responsible for more wars than usa and uk combined in the last few years. And how come you dont boycott those goods and stores that profit on the back of these wars?
But I think i know the answer already.

Can you link to where he reposted comments?

Happyman42

Skylinehead wrote: »

Well if you can't back it up, then there's nothing to argue.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88638044&postcount=617

Just by being there can cause the plane to crash. Air traffic control
did not know they were there and were allowing a fully laden jet to land before
the call came in. If they had allowed that jet to land and the pilot saw them on
the runway he would have had to try and avoid hitting them by pushing down full
throttle and climbing out of the landing. THAT is how those idiots on the runway
could have caused a passenger plane to crash that day.

No jet was cleared to land that day.
He did drop saying it on questioning but hasn't corrected or apologising for attempying to mislead readers of the thread.

How is that relevant to the thread in general, I mean?

Because demonstrating that ATC routinely 'scan' (the ATCO's testimony about what he was doing) the runway shows that by chosing the gate nearest the Tower implies that the protesters where making it as easy as possible to be seen.

How can they take an emergency situation into account when they have no idea an emergency situation could even be occurring? It could happen before they even realise it, jets are quite fast you know.

Anyway, there's nothing more to be said. Absolutely anybody with the evidence to hand has said that they were a danger, it's only you that's arguing against that evidence. I think I'll trust the relevant experts instead of your ramblings about who can see what, even it's irrelevant crap.

No emergency plane lands without clearance and if you believe like I and the protesters believe, that part of the duty of the ATC is to make sure the runway is clear for landing then they knew that they would be seen and would be cleared off the runway long before a jet actually got down.
It was a clear day ad I have spent to many days watching jets not to know that from first sight(not to mention first radio contact with authorities) on an approach to actual touchdown would leave time to get well out of the way.
And as I said earlier they may have been monitoring ATC Live as they testified they knew that it was a 'Quiet window' when they did go onto the runway.

The idea btw was not to die themselves (which they almost certainly would in a tangle with a jet) but to be arrested. They had no intention of tangling with moving aircraft.

bumper234

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you link to where he reposted comments?

I think he claimed to have posted them on her FB page but there is no sign of them there, Another lie i suppose.:rolleyes: