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."
How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Funny)
You happen to live in Sydney?
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Funny)
You want to just drive yourself over or do we have to come pick you up?
-FBI
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd have to think, for stability a laser emitter and binoculars or low range telescope on a rifle stock would be better. photographers [google.com] using telescopic lenses have been doing this for a long time, especially for nature shooting, where a tripod isn't practical.
For most folks who just picked up a cheap laser emitter, it doesn't exactly seem like they'd want to spend the money for binoculars nor a rifle stock. Unless of course they already have a binocular or telescope, and a BB rifle.
I wonder how many of these incidents aren't malicious. There are plenty of laser devices for stage and outdoor performances too. In 2008, the FAA statistics say there were about 31.8 million flights. I assume the number of flights for 2010 is similar or greater than the 2008 number. If so, this involved 0.009% of the flights.
Have you ever been to a shooting range, where someone was using a laser sight? It can be very scary. Most people can't point a gun steady enough to keep the point on the paper. That's only at a range of a few feet. Years back, I had a laser pointer, and lived in a 2nd floor apartment. At night when there was no traffic, I'd point it at street signs and tail lights of parked cars (they both reflect very well). Ok, I was young, and bored. I have steady hands, and can shoot firearms more accurately than most people. I could put the point on them very accurately at say 100 feet. At any significant distance (say 200'+), the beam divergence was pretty significant, so it had to hit something reflective to see it at all. As the range increased beyond that, the divergence would become greater (obviously), and even with a point the size of a truck, it was hard to put on target.
At my local airport (a fairly busy international airport), the traffic pattern is at 1,500 feet (about 1,000 feet higher than any local structures). The FAA recommendation for the traffic pattern is 1,000 feet AGL, unless local conditions warrant otherwise (mountains, buildings, or noise abatement rules). So if it's hard to put a laser pointer dot accurately on something as big as a parked truck at around 200 feet or so, it would be damned near impossible to stay on a target at 1000+ feet traveling at 160mph.
The other option would be that it's common to spot commercial entertainment lasers, from say outdoor concerts, theme parks, etc. They are not permitted to point any laser towards the eyes of the audience. Their only choice is to point them up. With that being true, a 0.009% chance of a pilot seeing a laser likely coincides with the chance of an aircraft intersecting the beam while in the pattern or on approach. Any higher than that, I'd say a pilot probably wouldn't even notice the dim light, or at best it would look like any other lights on the ground.
I've only ever heard of two instances where someone was caught shining lasers at aircraft. One was a guy who had purchased a high power laser, and was caught when he was pointing it at a police helicopter (stable target, low altitude, ability to follow it to the offender). The other was the incident cited in the article, which would not be included in the FAA's statistics. With such little evidence of who the offenders are, it leaves plenty of opportunity for the evidence of pilots seeing lasers to be circumstantial at best in saying that the offenders were actually intentionally committing the acts.
Sorry for rambling on there. :)
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anybody on here designing the next generation of passenger jets? The gate^H^H^H^H target is down, gentlemen.
Re:How do you hit the cockpit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can only speak to the approach into LAX, because that is the only major international airport that I have seen on a regular basis (unless you count PDX, but that is more regional). There are plenty of 4-5 story parking garages along the 405 as the planes are nearly down on final approach. A person could probably get another 5 feet of elevation for standing on top of a vehicle, maybe 6-7 feet if you find a big lifted monster truck or cargo van. All in total that is about 55 feet of elevation.
The flight paths on those planes is completely predictable. It would be fairly easy to get into the cockpit of some of those planes. A person would probably need a aim a few miles out. Once they were near the garage, the angle would be too extreme given the height of the cockpit.
How much energy would be needed to create a distracting level of laser light into the cockpit of a jumbo jet that is 5-10 miles away?
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: (Score:3)
How do you manage getting a beam of light inside a cockpit that opens facing upward?
When the aircraft is in a landing approach it is angled downward. The nose is only 'up' when they flare out for landing.
Re: (Score:3)
If you nose down, you're doing it wrong. You should be level, and sinking. If you nose down without flaps, you'll be going forward to fast. If you nose down with flaps, you'll be going down too fast.
sad thing is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:5, Funny)
No joke, once they green the lasers it's all over.
Re: (Score:3)
If you outlaw laser pointers, only outlaws will have laser pointers.
Re: (Score:2)
Semi-automatic handguns have much shorter ranges.
Re: (Score:2)
And already have laws covering ownership and carrying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A handgun has precious little chance of knocking down an airliner from the ground.
And cars are much more dangerous weapons than handguns.
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:5, Interesting)
A properly unloaded firearm in a locked case is permitted in an airport. The baggage is checked separately and tagged so that TSA knows it is there. Yes, this includes a handgun. It may seem counter-intuitive to those have never been in uninhabited areas, but a large caliber handgun is useful in case you are caught by surprise by wolves, boar, or bear. My cousin used to go on Salmon fishing trips in Alaska, and he always carried a .44 with him just in case he had to take down a bear. As far as I know, he never had to use it outside of the gun range, but better safe than sorry.
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: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:sad thing is ... (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting loophole... (Score:5, Interesting)
Get that? It must be locked. NORMAL checked luggage not only doesn't have to be locked, it's not allowed to be locked (so TSA can rifle through it as they please and steal your shit).
So if you want to be able to lock your checked baggage, just fly with a gun. Not only will you be able to lock your gun case, you will be REQUIRED to do so, and anything else you can fit in that gun case can be locked too. I used to know a guy who claimed to always fly with a starter pistol (legal in many jurisdictions) just so he could check a lockable case.
IANAL YMMV
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Arizona, you can have a handgun on you in the airport (not past TSA though, of course), and AFAIK the airport does not disagree about this. There's very few places in this state you're not allowed to carry a gun: Indian reservations, Federal buildings (including USPS), and Tempe's downtown Mill Avenue district. There's also various private businesses that restrict them, but all they can do is ask you to leave.
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:sad thing is ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't make one yourself, as they use a special laser diode.
If you just want a laser to cause mayhem with then afaict the ones out of DVD burners are far nastier than even the powerfull end of laser pointers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You speak of Iran and N. Korea being examples of nuclear bans working. Really??? Technology/infrastructure is limiting them more than some 'ban' imposed by other nations. They are going slower because other nations are not doing it for them, they are not going slower because of a ban.
You seem to be confused. There's no ban inside these countries: their governments are acting according to their own laws. The "ban" is that other governments are embargoing any materials which would help them to make their own bombs: centrifuges, various industrial equipment, etc. And so, the ban is working: these countries haven't been terribly successful so far. NK has been more so, with one very low-yield test.
Just like a ban on high explosives limits an American citizen to whatever he can make in his garage, the international ban (really embargo) on NK and Iran is limiting them to what they can make all by themselves, which has severely limited them. No, it isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than nothing: without an embargo, these countries would simply buy the equipment they needed, and they'd already have high-yield bombs by now. Just like I could buy some C-4 if it weren't banned, instead of trying to make it myself (which is probably not feasible).
As far as other bombs go, ask people in OKC how affective that is.
Go try to buy yourself enough fertilizer to blow up a building and see how successful you are. Or go try to buy some demolitions explosives. These things are tracked and limited now by the government.
Heroin is not easy to make yourself, nor is it easy to setup growing/refining operations and yet I could get some with a phone call. Do you think Cocaine is easy to make from scratch? The reason the ban doesn't work is because lots of people ignore the ban.
Wrong. These things aren't banned everywhere: it's perfectly legal to make heroin and cocaine in various central and south American countries, so it's made there, and smuggled here. As I said before, bans don't work so well when it's easy to get it from somewhere else. Besides, it's apparently not that hard to make cocaine, since a bunch of uneducated people in Columbia can do it just fine in makeshift buildings in the jungle. That doesn't sound like something difficult to me, just something that requires 1) farmed coca leaves, and 2) some manpower. That's not at all like something that requires high-tech machinery to manufacture.
Banning cigarettes would be far less affective than just everyone thinking they aren't cool.
Yes, again, because it would be easy to get around the ban: they'd simply grow tobacco elsewhere and import it here, just like they do with other drugs. Or, they'd grow it here, just like they do with pot. It's a plant, not a manufactured item. All you do is stick it in the ground and let it grow. Sure, you can get higher quality with better farming techniques or whatever, but these plants aren't genetically engineered, they're found in nature.
Now, for an alternate example, look at microprocessors. Suppose the government decided to ban all CPUs with more power than PIII. And suppose all other industrialized nations passed the same ban. Of course, they wouldn't be able to get all the ones already made, but they could easily stop all new ones from being made. Fabs are huge and extremely expensive, and it's not like you could set one up in a hut in the jungle somewhere. The knowledge needed to make CPUs is staggering, so getting a group of uneducated third-worlders isn't going to help you. Even if you have a few people who know a lot about them, it's not something you could possibly make in your garage because of the materials and equipment needed, not to mention the enormous capital costs. So here, if the governments decided to make high-power CPUs for themselves only, and ban them for everyone else, that ban would be very effective, and there's really nothing you or anyone else could do about it, even if all the people did want to ignore the ban.
Re: (Score:3)
I do, yearly, buy thousands of gallons of fertilizer, which I would assume is enough to blow up many buildings. I also know dozens of people personally that also buy fertilizer, sometimes in much larger quantities. In case you didn't know, fertilizer is used in farming, it's cheap, fungible, and whether it's tracked by the government or not is completely irrelevant because it's about as available in farm country
Re:sad thing is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
A single person gunning down a politician IS a crazy person. The only way a revolution ever works is to have a sufficient number of people organized and committed to the plan beforehand. This is usually called a "coup", and renamed to a "revolution" after it gains steam and popular support and starts looking successful. It doesn't start with one person shooting, and hundreds or thousands of people spontaneously joining in.
Just look at how America's Founding Fathers revolted. There were some riots and such beforehand due to very unpopular Crown policies and taxes, but the real revolution was carefully planned and prepared for by high-ranking, experienced people.
Shooting some random politician (not even one that's nationally known or especially notorious), or blowing up some unimportant Federal building, is NOT the start of a revolution, it's just some nutcase who thinks he's starting one. If you don't have plenty of people already backing you up before the first shot is fired, you'll never succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Most modern aircraft can very nearly land themselves, so no, I would *not* say that a low power laser pointer is as dangerous as a handgun, even taking into account this unusual edge case....
Re:Yes, PLEASE ban cars! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 didn't create a violent, dangerous society. That would be the criminal class who did, plus stupid laws and courts who let violent criminals out early, while keeping non-violent drug offenders in. Don't look at me, I didn't vote for the people who did that; if I had my way, drugs would all be decriminalized.
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.
Finally, even here, criminals don't always have guns, because they're not THAT easy to get (thanks to background check laws). So to commit a "gun crime", a criminal has to steal a gun first, and then commit a crime with it. But most criminals don't need guns for their crimes; they use other weapons: bats, knives, or good old-fashioned fists. They spend lots of time in prison pumping iron, so they're ready to use their physical size when they get out.
How exactly do you propose a 90-pound woman to defend herself against a 250 pound man? That's what guns are for, to level the field for physically disadvantaged people.
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.
Can somebody, pls find all the idiots involved (Score:4, Insightful)
and just beat the shit out of them for being well on their way towards having those fun laser pointers banned completely?
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.
Re:Can somebody, pls find all the idiots involved (Score:5, Interesting)
In Australia we ban just about anything at the drop of the hat. As such, their first reaction was to ban all laser pointers which could be used for this. It's now illegal to have them, similarly illegal as firearms, mase, battons, knives, etc.
So that was their first line of dealing with it. Make it illegal to have them, then you just need to find it in their house/car/clothes, and you can arrest them for possession.
This is just explaining how they make it easy to catch and prosecute these people. I don't agree with this, as this logic gets extrapolated quite easily. Eg, Want to get rid of bikies? Just ban motorcycle enthusiast groups [yahoo.com]. Want to stop people reading some book, playing some game [wikipedia.org], or watching some movie [wikipedia.org]? Just make ratings required, and refuse to classify anything you don't like.
Re:Can somebody, pls find all the idiots involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What slippery sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope!?
Re: (Score:2)
and just beat the shit out of them for being well on their way towards having those fun laser pointers banned completely?
Even that won't stop these idiots, because they already possess the laser pointers, and they won't magically vanish from their possession just because a ban is passed.
I'll say it. (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we can't have nice things. Someone always has to be irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll say it. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but your wife is now complaining she can see a green glow in your scrotum.
BUY NOW! (Score:3)
This is why we can't have nice things. Someone always has to be irresponsible.
Indeed. If you want one of these things for hobby or just for fun, *NOW* is the time to buy, because before too long, you'll need a licence to purchase.
I've had it.. (Score:2, Funny)
...with these **********ing lasers on this **********ing plane!
Re:I've had it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be new here. You can cuss as much as you want here:
"I've had it... with these fucking lasers on this fucking plane!"
Re:I've had it.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "mother". Incidentally, I'm telling her you said a bad word.
So, the biggest threat to airline travel .... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, the biggest threat to airline travel is prankster laser pointer wielding yocals and not some loon putting explosives on a plane or hijacking it?!?
Remember that when you're taking your shoes off, having your personal items picked through and groped by the TSA.
Re:So, the biggest threat to airline travel .... (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been a campaign for decades to close or at least move Sydney airport. It sits in an inner-city suburb that predates the airport.
Every election sees both federal and state governments promising to do something about it.
Spend some time in a suburb like Rockdale and you'll have to get used to large aircraft passing at chimney height all day and most of the night. At other airports with similar problems aircraft have been found with bullet holes in them. So I think the laser crew are being most restrained.
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: (Score:3)
Re:So, the biggest threat to airline travel .... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't speak for Sidney airport, not knowing the situation. That said, it can be somewhat understandable.
I live next to a railroad track. Usually twice a week, about 10:00AM, a train comes past carrying supplies to the local Home Depot and will make a lot of noise--like you can't hear someone close-by talking. It's twice a week--always on a weekday, lasts maybe 30 seconds, and it's not a huge deal.
However, if the trains suddenly started coming by every hour between 6:00AM and midnight, I think I'd be more than a little upset.
Again, I don't know the Sidney situation. But as airports expand outward, the house you bought 15 years ago that was far enough away from the airport that the noise level wasn't too bad is suddenly unsellable and unlivable because the airport became bigger or planes became noisier or some such thing.
Accidental? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that's right... People accidentally aimed lasers into the pupils of pilots when the planes were far enough out that the pointer-holder couldn't tell the difference between a plane and a star.
Learn some geometry and fucking get real.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Accidental? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't go near airports to watch the stars.
Re:Accidental? (Score:5, Funny)
You don't go near airports to watch the stars.
Yes you do:
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/arts/photos/2009/08/17/beatles-cp-250-7152353.jpg [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're not stargazing right beside an airport, so the planes are going to be at a pretty good altitude. How are you going to hit the cockpit?
Re:Accidental? (Score:5, Interesting)
I own a 100mw green laser pointer -- the rare times I end up showing it to people, all of them aim it out into the distance to hit some target -- usually a tree or phone pole. I quickly noticed about 1/4th of them would aim it at a helicopter or airplane. It's not malice -- it's stupidity. Now after telling people the dangers of pointing it at living things or reflective objects, I have to tell them not to point it at flying shit too.
The chances of someone having a steady enough hand to hit a plane are slim. Being able to keep it on the plane for any significant amount of time to blind someone is even slimmer. The beam is around 4-8mm wide at 3 miles distance on an expensive laser pointer. I don't know if it would have enough power at that distance to blind or even annoy. But hey -- there is plenty of shit on the ground to point at, so I don't really care to test it.
Re: (Score:3)
A dark adapted pupil is 9mm in diameter, so an 8mm beam at 3 miles is just as dangerous as a 1mm beam at 10 centimeters. 100mW is well past the retinal damage threshold. Laser beams don't lose power with distance (in clear weather), they just expand. Until they expand to a diameter wider than a human pupil (such that the amount of power that can enter the eye at once actually drops), they're equally dangerous.
However, your 8mm figure is way off as far as I can tell. A typical laser pointer has a divergence
Only pilots who are pussies (Score:4, Insightful)
Lasers pointed at cockpits can temporarily blind pilots
Please cite examples of pilots who have temporarily been "blinded" by a laser.
While it's a nuisance to see someone shine a laser beam around your cockpit, the plane's speed, the shakiness of human hands, and the distance from the person pointing it makes it unlikely that the laser beam will find its way directly into one of the two pupils a pilot may have for more than a fraction of a second.
But America has given up on things like trigonometry, math and science, in favor of bullshit like this. The current situation is 1) Pilot and copilot see red dot jump momentarily around the cockpit and decide to report the incident, 2) Pilot and copilot agree to overstate the harm done to them in an effort to persuade authorities that this is a "serious problem" 3) The media gets hold of the story and distorts it further, screaming for the death penalty for anyone who owns a laser pointer and lives within 10 miles of an airport. But no one is willing to do the math.
Yeah it's irresponsible to point lasers at airplanes. Call me if ever there's a serious incident that puts an aircraft in danger.
Re:Only pilots who are pussies (Score:5, Interesting)
This issue doesn't need to be that it reaches the pilot's eye(s), when the beam reaches the window and it "scatters" the beam giving it a bright area through which you can't see.
Re: (Score:3)
OK I'll accept your point. But you would need some pretty expensive equipment to keep the beam steady, correct for the speed and altitude change of the aircraft if it's on glideslope, and make sure your beam is steady over the spot that exactly lines up between the pilot's eyes and the runway.
Re: (Score:3)
OK I'll accept your point. But you would need some pretty expensive equipment to keep the beam steady, correct for the speed and altitude change of the aircraft if it's on glideslope, and make sure your beam is steady over the spot that exactly lines up between the pilot's eyes and the runway.
This equipment is called "hands", and pretty much everyone's got a pair.
Or is it your point that the "blinding" only happens for a few seconds, what could go wrong in that time?
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't need to be a steady beam, with a powerful laser it just takes a fraction of a second to dazzle a pilot and force him to abort a landing. I work at an airport and have flown in the cockpit enough times to tell you that landings are sketchy enough without some jackass on the ground trying to distract you. Fortunately the things are run in a modern cockpit makes switching command and aborting landing a fairly simple task, nevertheless it's just a matter of time before a pilot gets a laser in the eye
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger the area, the quadratically lower the brightness, am I right?
Says the guy with no flying experience... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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:Says the guy with no flying experience... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I would rather live in a world where people behaved responsibly. Sadly that is impossible.
I accept your argument, and I accept that night vision can be diminished by even a brief flash of light at night. I'm too lazy to calculate the energy density of a "wide", poorly collimated laser beam at 3 miles, however considering that these beams are usually powered by 5/1000ths of a watt or so, it's not a lot of energy to start with (the sun puts out around 24 times much energy per square centimeter). It's far less than 5 mW if you're not getting the whole "beam". I suspect that the impact on night vision is not much greater than looking at the instruments (which also emit light in a dark cockpit, and have to be checked quite often as you know).
Rather than destroying vision I would claim that the biggest problem is surprise, and the chance of momentarily over-reacting or losing situational awareness because of that surprise. I agree that a pilot is quite busy during take off and landing, especially in weather and traffic, and anything unexpected is not good at all.
What I hate, however, is an argument brought to the table for the wrong reasons. I hate to think of laser pointers being controlled or outlawed because of a handful of idiots since they do have their uses besides entertaining pets. The blurb said that there are well over 2000 incidents per year. I would point out that despite this, there has not been a single accident. So I do not condone taking people who point lasers at planes and burning them at the stake or, as is likely, charging them with PAX # counts of attempted murder, to be served consecutively.
I still challenge that lost eyesight is the least of a pilot's worries, but this is the argument that is put forward. The pussies comment was a generalization based upon my opinion of a particular event in the news, because a flight crew came across as especially whiny and were threatening to sue the whole world because of this.
Re:Says the guy with no flying experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
... however considering that these beams are usually powered by 5/1000ths of a watt or so, it's not a lot of energy to start with (the sun puts out around 24 times much energy per square centimeter). It's far less than 5 mW if you're not getting the whole "beam".
Your argument is like saying that a 600,000 volt stun gun is only powered by one 9 volt battery.
It's true, but irrelevant when you're lying on the ground twitching.
I suspect that the impact on night vision is not much greater than looking at the instruments (which also emit light in a dark cockpit, and have to be checked quite often as you know).
And now you're just making stuff up, but if you're confident in your assesment,
I'd encourage you to test the effects of a green laser to the eyes from 3 miles away.
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.
True, but stupid (Score:3)
Yes, and auto-pilot can fly an aircraft better for 99% of the time. Pity that 1% is the take off and landing where the risk is the biggest. Back to the drawing board.
Remember that pilot who succesfully landed his airliner on water? Auto-pilot or pilot skill? And how do you think that pilot got skilled? By turning on the auto-pilot?
Should be on mythbusters (Score:3)
I have to agree. I've heard reports of this for a long time but how is this even possible? Scattering on the windows? They're pointed upwards as well from what I've seen of big planes. Maybe they're talking about small aircraft. I just can't see 1500 incidences a year, though. Maybe the pilots are confusing the phenomena with something else.
This should be on an episode of mythbusters.
Re: (Score:3)
I just can't see 1500 incidences a year, though.
If I shine a laser every night at a plane, then I created 365 or so incidents. If I do so at 4 different airports each night, then I created almost 1500 right there.
Re: (Score:2)
While it's a nuisance to see someone shine a laser beam around your cockpit, the plane's speed, the shakiness of human hands, and the distance from the person pointing it makes it unlikely that the laser beam will find its way directly into one of the two pupils a pilot may have for more than a fraction of a second.
Moreso than that. The average consumer laser's columnating lens is much lower quality than scientific grade. My pointers have some serious expansion and scatter. At about a block the green dot that used to be 1/8" wide and sharply defined at a few feet away is about the size of a beachball. (the central dot, the scatter will be well over dumpster size)
So there is quite a bit of spread for most laser pointers. I don't think it poses anywhere near the usual safety issue of flat out getting permanent blind
Re: (Score:3)
Now if someone is pointing a 5mW red las
I've been illuminated... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I've been illuminated... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Here's an example from a police helicopter. The guy doing it is clearly not holding it very still, but you can see the effects. When it hits the more "scarred" surface of the front cockpit glass it scatters even more than the video seen here, where it goes in through the observer's side door.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUpmLbkzyEI [youtube.com]
Re:I've been illuminated... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ban them anyway. (Score:2)
Damn sharks... (Score:2)
... don't they have anything better to do, like eat some surfers? And just who gave them the lasers in the first place? Damn Pentagon!
Transposed Conditionals (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of the "fallacy of the transposed conditional" and how people use it to justify legislation that does nothing to address the problem.
See if you can assign a likelihood (high or low) to the following:
Probability that someone has a laser, given that they shined one at an airplane,
Probability that someone shines one at an airplane, given that they have a laser.
The likelihood that anyone having a laser will use it against an airplane is so astronomically small that legislation will have no appreciable effect, but will inconvenience many people.
The logic is precisely backwards, but it sounds like a justification.
Someone should introduce the legislators down under to Bayes Theorem.
payback's a bitch (Score:2)
close but it's all I got (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh n0es Ban EvrythIng!!111!11 (Score:3)
"resulted in a ban on all laser pointers in the state of New South Wales."
Sigh ... can we please ban 'knee-jerk banning' based on statistically highly unlikely incidents that don't even actually cause safety problems because 'this is why we have co-pilots' (an incident that was probably already illegal in this case)?
Why don't we just ban EVERYTHING, in advance, just in case anyone uses it in a bad way? Woman throws an ashtray at husband's head? Ban ashtrays! Man throws coffee mug back? Ban mugs! A child trips over a LAN cable? Ban LAN cables!
But why wait? Let's introduce a new bill called the "Ban Everything Bill".
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatly the human eye sees green as the brightest colour. If you're putting filters on the pilot's eyes, he'll be seeing less at night, or in foggy conditions or something similar.
How about a camera to outside instead?
Re: (Score:2)
You think a pilot is easy to blind.... Though I suppose they could always fall back on the windows if someone did.
Re:Laser Filters? (Score:4, Funny)
If all you need is a backup set of optics, just make the pilots wear an eyepatch.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or have LDC video screens in the cocpit as backup.
But cockpits are complex enough already and retro fit would be extremely expensive.
Automated Landing Systems might make more sense, since these would be also be useful in other situations. Fully automated landings are permitted in Europe, but I don't think they are in the US.
In most cases no serious damage is done, and the worst case todate has been the need for a go around. That may not last forever.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way as monkeys can pound out sentences on typewriters - sit and smoke weed for a couple of hours, 'painting' every plane that's landing, and you're bound to succeed in blinding a couple of them.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, if people are that freaked out about it, they could just have the co-pilot wear a $30 pair of laser-safety glasses on approach, and take over if the pilot gets dazzled.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Australia must be one of the most (over) regulated nations on the planet these days.
It seems that as soon as *anyone* mis-uses something, they have a kneejerk reaction that results in bans.
Semi-automatic rifles, handguns, laser-pointers, bottled water in universities, plastic bags, etc, etc. The list is already long and looks as if it's going to be endless.
Come on Aussies -- stand up and fight for your rights!
Re:No! Lasers don't blind pilots (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Not only do pilots look at the (rather tall) instrument board most at the time, and don't stare at scenery, but it's also impossible to keep the laser pointer pointed at a moving target at any distance. If anyone were able to do so, don't fine them -- hire them as gunners for the military, because that kind of precision is supernatural.
And at the distance a plane is away, combined with the rather thick windows of a plane, even if a superhuman was able to hit the eye of a pilot for a fraction of a second, it would have far less of an impact than a quick glance at the sun, something people frequently do.
Plain and simple, this is FUD, and another attempt at at the same time scaring people and showing that the powers do something about it.
Re: (Score:3)
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: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.
Re: (Score:3)