Laser Incidents With Aircraft On the Rise 546
EqualSlash writes "High-power laser pointers available for cheap are increasingly finding abuse as the ultimate long-distance weapons of pranksters and vandals. The Federal Aviation Administration says laser events aimed on planes have nearly doubled in the last year, leaping from 1,527 in 2009 to 2,836 in 2010. The highest number of incidents was reported at Los Angeles International Airport, which recorded 102 in 2010. Lasers pointed at cockpits can temporarily blind pilots, forcing them to give up control of an aircraft to their co-pilot or abort a take-off/landing. In March of 2008, unidentified individuals wielding four green laser pointers launched a coordinated attack on six incoming planes at Sydney Airport, which resulted in a ban on all laser pointers in the state of New South Wales."
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Informative)
The pilots must be able to see the ground for landing and must be able to look down for traffic avoidance--if they can see the ground, someone on the ground can blast them in the eye with a laser. You are right though--someone directly below would have a hard time shining the laser into most cockpits and must be some horizontal distance away.
Re:Can somebody, pls find all the idiots involved (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the penalty for that is less than a beating.
It is charged as interfering with a flight crew [nwsource.com] and does not carry much of a penalty.
Catching the culprits is difficult, unless someone happens to see who did it, its just not likely to happen. By the time you mobilize resources they just put it in their pocket and walk away.
I've been illuminated... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Says the guy with no flying experience... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Near my international airport (KSEA for those interested) is a public park on the north end of the airport, from there it is a ridiculously easy shoot into the cockpit with a laser at around 3 miles when aircraft are landing to the north (runways 34). At that range most green lasers beams are actually fairly wide, but still plenty bright, especially to eyes that have spent the last 6 hours acclimated to almost total darkness (pilots routinely turn the lights down at night) Since you bring up geometry, I submit to you that the angle from ground to cockpit at that distance is probably in the 10 degree range. And consider that these aircraft are landing from the south, facing north. The pilot is required to maintain contact with the runway lighting system at all times, including the lights leading up to the runway. If they can see lights 1/2 mile ahead of them, I think they can see the lights 3 miles ahead of them. If you'd like i'll get out my FAR/AIM (FAA rule bible) and quote you the regs.
Now, lets talk the pussies argument. Would you want YOUR pilot to be even 1/4 blinded when operating at 175mph and 300 feet off the ground? Safety says you go around and let your eyes reacclimate. It's not that they could NEVER land the plane, but that given the other stressors already in place, why would you risk it? Remember we are in the plane with you, and we have just as much interest in going home to our families as you do.
My credentials: Commerial rated, Multi-engine and Single-engine, with an unrestricted IFR rating.
Posting AC due to lack of account, long time reader.
Re:I've had it.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Informative)
On a clear day, with excellent optics, probably surprisingly little(In Lunar laser rangefinding experiments, the laser spreads from being a near-point-source to a mere 4 mile diameter spot across ~240,000 miles). Your not-at-all-pricey 250-500mW DPSS greens would probably do just fine, if you could keep them stable and on target.
If your optics are shit, or there is fog/dust/substantial thermal shimmer, requirements would go up markedly...
Re:I've been illuminated... (Score:5, Informative)
It spreads a fair amount over long ranges, and it scatters considerably when it hits the cockpit glass and when your eyes are acclimatised to the dark it is relatively very bright. It's not so much that it gets directly into your eyes, more that it changes the conditions in the cockpit at a time when you are concentrating and things that are out of the ordinary are immediately tagged by the brain as potential issues that you might have to deal with
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Banning things has never worked and never will.
Not true. It depends on what you're trying to ban: how common is it, how easy is it to get a hold of, how easy is it to make your own, how easy is it to detect, etc.?
For instance, banning marijuana has never been very successful, because 1) it's super easy to make your own, you just need seeds (it is, after all, a weed: weeds by definition grow easily), and 2) it's easy for other people to set up large-scale operations to make it and smuggle it.
Guns are in the middle: on this continent (Americas), guns are everywhere, so banning them in certain places doesn't work because people just get them in another place and take them where they're not supposed to. It probably works a lot better in the UK because they're an island, so once they've gotten the handguns away from the citizens, it's not that hard to control the import and export of them. Plus, they don't seem to have any domestic manufacturers of handguns, unlike both the USA and also many European countries (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic). Also, because so many guns are in the hands of civilians here, banning them wouldn't work because they're already out there (people aren't going to just turn them in when asked). Finally, guns are fundamentally rather simple mechanical devices; it's not that hard for someone with a machine shop to make their own.
Now for an example of something where a ban works, look at nuclear weapons. By their very nature, these things are really hard to make, and require huge amounts of money, plus access to uranium, and advanced technology to refine it into weapons-grade material. Look how much trouble the governments of Iran and North Korea are having in making their own nuclear bombs.
Of course, that's a little extreme, but how about other bombs? Those are illegal for citizens in most countries, but there's not a lot of trouble enforcing that ban, because again the materials are hard to find, or it's not that easy to make them, plus ready-made bombs aren't floating around in large quantities and easily smuggled (unlike recreational drugs for instance). Sure, you could make one with commonly-available household chemicals (bleach, etc.), but in my reading on that stuff, those kinds of bombs are very unstable, and most likely to injure or kill the bombmaker. They aren't stable explosives you can carry around and plant on a target and reliably detonate. There is one stable explosive you can buy legally in most states, called "tannerite", but the only way to ignite this stuff is to shoot it with a supersonic bullet (usually meaning a rifle), so that's not exactly practical if you're trying to set a bomb somewhere to do some mayhem. The materials for making stable, reliable, high explosives just aren't easy to get or make, so that's why we don't have people running around with grenades and rockets and such.
Now, when stuff is all around you, it's really impossible to enforce a ban. For instance, some people are banned from driving a car, because they've had their license suspended or revoked. How does that work out? Not well: they just hop in the car and drive anyway (since the state usually doesn't confiscate their car; even if they do, they take their family member's car).
With handheld lasers, enforcing a ban wouldn't be that hard, though it certainly wouldn't be 100%. First, they have to decide if they're banning only the super-powerful ones, or any laser pointer at all (including the small ones integrated with presentation remotes, or used as cat toys, etc.). Banning the latter would be pretty much impossible, because small low-power lasers are everywhere these days, and lots of people have small laser pointers. But the powerful ones aren't so common, nor so inexpensive. You can't make one yourself, as they use a special laser diode. So if they banned the importation of the pointers, and also of the components needed to make them, that would make it pretty hard to get them in, dependi
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Father had a .44 for bear - didn't work out that well. Very difficult to aim when standing alongside brush and other obstacles. Turns out that a standard 12 guage is far more effective. They are more difficult to carry then a handgun but easier to use and still much lighter then a rifle. There are pros and cons like with any other decision. Anyone wanting protection from bear/wolf/boar should at least consider the shotgun. They are easier to use which makes them better suited to those not familiar with guns.
On a side note - wolves really do not threaten humans. There are very few cases of wolf attacks - but it does happen (unlike what some others like to claim.) They pose a much bigger threat to animals/livestock that you might have with you when in the back country. They routinely follow dog sleds hoping that a dog will stray back from the sled - which they would instantly kill. Happens all the time to my father + his sledding buddies - but they don't bother carrying guns for wolf protection. If a wolf is going to get your dog then you can bet that they will do it without giving you the opportunity to shoot. You generally do not even see them (unless on a lake) - you just hear them howling all around you. The bigger danger is from moose - I know several people who have lost multiple dogs to moose attack. And I know one guy who killed a moose who got into his dogs with a snow hook (used to "hook" the sled to the snow - basically a ~3lb piece of metal.) Because the dogs are all tethered together, they don't stand a chance against a moose.
Re:Says the guy with no flying experience... (Score:5, Informative)
Just some clarifications... (and no, I'm not the AC)
...I submit to you that the angle from the ground to cockpit at that distance is probably in the 10 degree range.
I'm just being nit-picky. I looked up KSEA's approaches. The glidepath (depending on the runway) varies from 2.75 degrees to 3.00 degrees. Not quite 10 degrees.
Many laser incidents, according to ASRS [nasa.gov], have occured during the landing phase when the aircraft is "inside" the Final Approach Fix--generally less than five nautical miles from the runway threshold. This is typically a point where the aircraft is approximately 1,500 feet above ground traveling at approximately 130 to 150 knots. Y'all are smart, you can figure out the MPH. It's only a matter of moments before ground contact if directional control is compromised.
...maintain contact with the runway lighting system...
Well, sort of. 14 CFR 91.175 gives the instrument-rated pilot a laundry list of options, but to over-simplify it, if you can't see something that defines the runway, you can't land there.
Remember we are in the plane with you, and we have just as much interest in going home to our families as you do.
I've used that same response when asked, "Where are the parachutes?" by our most skittish infrequent fliers.
Oh, I didn't read them all, but I didn't notice a report of a red laser in the cockpit. The majority of them are reported as being green.
Now, on a personal note, I have never seen a laser cross my cockpit. However, I have been struck by lightning twice (each time during the day) and it is incredibly blinding if you happen to be looking straight at the discharge. I realize this is apples and oranges in terms of candlepower, but the point is that it is surprising, and it will "reset" your night vision if the intensity is enough to adjust the iris. I could easily see the flying pilot being forced to transfer control of the aircraft to the non-flying pilot--a potentially reportable incident to the NTSB.
Re:What came first? (Score:4, Informative)
Sydney airport is pretty much right in the middle of the city. Thats great for access into the city but not so good for livability. Melbourne airport BTW was built with the problem you describe in mind. It has large exclusion zones beyond the end of each runway where houses can't be built.
Re:Yes, PLEASE ban cars! (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but I've already had to fend off one attempted home invasion (in Phoenix) with my shotgun, so unless you have first-hand experience with violent criminals, I think your opinion is worthless.
I don't buy that one experience, if true, gives you superior qualifications or knowledge. I've spent much of my life in downtowns of major cities with much higher crime rates than Phoenix, but that doesn't make me an expert. I do know that criminals almost always want easy money, not conflict -- they want your money, not you. Pointing a gun at a criminal greatly increases your chance of getting shot; the mentally unstable (either natural or drug-assisted) may freak out and shoot. A tip for the inexperienced: If they want your money, give it to them; it's just money, it's not worth your life or health.
Your experience coincidentally fits the same old rhetoric from right wing fringe:
The "rest of you" don't have the same situation we do. If you're in Europe, you live in small, homogeneous countries, so you don't have all the race and poverty problems we do. It's a lot easier to get along when you don't have giant groups of people mired in poverty for whatever reason.
These assertions are bizarre. Europe is small, homogenous countries? With no poverty problems? Really? In fact, their race problems are worse than the U.S. right now and have the same cause, lots of bigots who react like animals to anything different than them and inflict suffering on innocent people. It's not race that causes conflict, it's the racists. Aren't centuries of slavery; another of segregation, oppression, and lynchings; and continuing discrimination enough to demonstrate that? And that's just the blacks; don't forget the Catholics (yes, there used to be riots against Catholics!), Native Americans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and currently Latinos, gays, and Muslims, etc etc. The bigots simply hate everyone not like them -- and then blame the victims for the problems!
Finally, even here, criminals don't always have guns, because they're not THAT easy to get (thanks to background check laws).
Maybe in Phoenix, though that's not what I understand. Elsewhere, many studies report that it's very easy for anyone to obtain a gun in major cities. Many city governments periodically have gun buy-back programs, where the government buys guns, no questions asked, just to get a few off the streets. Many reports attribute the large numbers of homicides in cities to the easy availability of guns; dumb disputes end in death rather than a black eye because a gun is at hand. Gun rights advocates fight any hint of an attempt to regulate guns, obsessing over one legalistic issue, the Second Amendment of the Constitution (which is vague about personal ownership of firearms), at the expense of many others, including the lives of people dying each year from gun violence. The U.S. has one of the highest murder rates among rich countries, and most of it is poor people killing other poor people of the same race (they live in the same neighborhood).
Both the racist and some (not all) of the gun rights arguments are rationalizations for people to follow their most base instincts, hatred and violence, without responsibility toward the people and society around them. They aren't serious ideas but more a demonstration of political aggression, to threaten anyone how disagrees. And they have a history of backing up those threats with violence.
Re:No! Lasers don't blind pilots (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. There has not been a single case of a pilot blinded by lasers, nor is it likely there ever will be.
Strawman argument. The issue is not permanent blindness, but disorientation, temporary blindness, or injury. There are multiple reports of pilots being injured by lasers:
Burned retina: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/28/20040928-111356-3924r/ [washingtontimes.com]
Ruptured blood vessels: http://www.marconews.com/news/2011/jan/03/collier-sheriff-helicopter-pilots-injured-laser/?partner=yahoo_feeds [marconews.com]
Unspecified possible injury: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/25/319357/pilot-injured-in-american-md-82-laser-incident.html [flightglobal.com]
You might not be impressed because there's no blood, but an eye injury can be a career-ender for a pilot. Disorientation is the most common result of lasing incidents, with some cases of temporary blindness. Reduced vision, even temporarily, is a Big Deal when flying.
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:4, Informative)
Fish and Game Officials Hopeful Wolf Attacks Will Soon Stop [wolfsongnews.org]
Wolves attack joggers' dogs on Fort Rich [freerepublic.com]
Bold Anchorage wolves attack dogs, circle joggers [blogspot.com]
Woman, dogs attacked by Alaskan wolves [upi.com]
Teacher killed by wolves in Alaska, police say [reuters.com]
Awww man, you only asked for one.
Re:No! Lasers don't blind pilots (Score:4, Informative)
In short, none of these have been verified, and there's a quite high possibility that the pilots are either lying, having harmed themselves, or were suffering from psychosomatic injuries.
Let's look at the first example. The pilot was 5 miles away from the airport when "struck". As you know, during approach, you can't really see much of the ground closer to you than the airport, but OK let's be generous and say 2 miles minimum distance to any visible ground object.
This 200 mW green laser [wickedlasers.com] (which almost certainly was far more powerful than what the kid had, but let's be generous again) has a no-harm distance of 100 m. The minimum distance the pilot was away was THIRTY-TWO times that. The power diminishes by a factor of a square of the distance, so at that range, it's less than a thousandth of the strength needed to cause damage.
Never mind the utter infeasibility of being able to keep the laser on the cockpit glass for more than a fraction of a second, and the dampening effect of the cockpit glass itself.
Again, there are alternative explanations (see my first sentence) which I find far more plausible.
Sure, you can get startled by the eerie light from a laser, but if they really were that damaging at that distance, every soldier would have been outfitted with a laser pointer a long time ago.