UK Pilots' Union Calls For Laser Pointers To Be Classed As Offensive Weapons (theguardian.com) 275
An anonymous reader writes: The body that represents airline pilots in the UK has called for handheld laser pointers to be classed as offensive weapons, after a Virgin Atlantic flight to the U.S. was forced to return to Heathrow when its co-pilot was dazzled by a laser during takeoff. The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) said aircraft were being "attacked" by the devices "at an alarming rate and with lasers with ever-increasing strength." It said the problem was becoming "more and more urgent."
that still doesn't help you catch the buggers (Score:3, Interesting)
how about instead, equip planes with a return-fire laser? one that, say, would melt granite at 3 miles? you'll stop repeat offenders dead in their tracks, so to speak. much cheaper and more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, for actually approvable/implementable ideas: develop (if not already on the market) and install a film that filters out the most common laser frequencies.
That said, automatic direction finding and reporting (doesn't this already exist? if not, it should) would be nice to assist local police. Maybe with a nice telephoto camera to give them a picture of the suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is, if a hand held laser is of sufficient concern to pilots, than likely it should not be on the streets in a readily accessible child use format that allows children to damage the vision of other children or do any other combination of stupid things. Especially something so difficult to trace as a laser. Quite simply there is simply to high a percentage of ignorant people prone to stupid decision to allow a range of products to be readily accessible to the public, whether that ignorance be as
Re: (Score:3)
"Can I get this icon--" the boss paused, sweeping the bright red dot from a PowerPoint graph of Q3 profits to a pattern stamped on one of the heroin baggies piled on the conference room table "--in cornflower blue?"
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly what we need is more good guys with laser pointers to stop the bad guys with laser pointers :)
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is, if a knife is of sufficient concern to pilots, than likely it should not be on the streets in a readily accessible child use format that allows children to damage other children or do any other combination of stupid things. Especially something so difficult to trace as a knife. Quite simply there is simply to high a percentage of ignorant people prone to stupid decision to allow a range of products to be readily accessible to the public, whether that ignorance be as a result of age, genetics, lead or other kinds of brain function poisoning or poor upbringing. Sure create a smarter, saner more healthy society and all that junk becomes safely accessible but we have yet to do that, hence we are forced to continue to attempt to make our societies idiot proof. Who does reproduce or who does not, who is allowed the responsibility of bringing up the next generation and who is not, who is allowed to become and educator in what kind of environment and who is banned (cheat on these and you deserve to be punished by the crimes committed by failures in the system to turn a foetus into a whole and complete contributing citizen).
Your argument seems solid. Let's ban knives.
Re: (Score:2)
You people are so pathetically obtuse, I specially said a laser pointer that could damage vision, if it can not damage vision, who gives a fuck, if it can damage vision, yeah really tight controls and even banning specific devices. Sorry but the world has to be built around people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>columnating
>Get an education or shut up about things of which you know absolutely nothing.
By that logic, considering you can't spell, shut the fuck up and take your ass off this site until you know how.
Collimated, you ill-educated ignorant fuckwit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be simpler just to put a defocusing lens on the pointers that spreads the beam a bit so that the device is still usable in classrooms and lecture halls, but isn't vision damaging hundreds or thousands of meters away? After a suitable period, make possession of an old style pointer or a new one with the defocuser removed a crime unless the device has somehow been rendered unsuitable for targetting transportation vehicles.
Re: that still doesn't help you catch the buggers (Score:3)
There are uses for sinning lasers into the sky in focus. For example as a star sight on my telescope. Of course if I see a plane in the sky I return it of long before they get near the bean because it is already illegal to shine lasers at planes in the uk. We don't need more regulations, we need to enforce the ones we already have. Same goes for quadcopters which the same pilots union has been lobbying for more regulation too, no enforce the ones already in existence and educate people.
Re: (Score:2)
And back in the real world, that happens to be impossible to do. And illegal. And impossible to target. And generally extremely stupid.
Re: that still doesn't help you catch the buggers (Score:2)
Or.. Why not just equip pilots with glasses that filter the main common ladder frequencies? They would only need to be worn during risk time (near the ground) and the frequency band are rather narrow so should have low impact on normal vision.
But that would be far too simple.. Wouldn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure? Laser guided missiles follow the shine of the laser, whatever is "illuminated" as the tac speak calls it. is considered the target. Watching a plane you're firing a laser at launch a missile at you, you'd probably drop the laser (turning it off) and run like hell. So now there's this missile heading roughly in the area of where a laser last was. That sounds safe.
Or better yet, you lase the plane, plane fires a missile and then you shine your laser at the front door of the local cop shop.
Re:that still doesn't help you catch the buggers (Score:5, Insightful)
I still maintain that if a $5 cat toy
If you think that the lasers being used to do this are $5 cat toys, you are ignorant. It is disingenuous at best to pretend that the problem is $5 cat toys.
then the aircraft itself is deeply flawed
Yeah, because having a large machine operated by a human being who needs eyesight to do it safely is such a flawed concept.
Of course, despite all the whinging, there's never been a documented case of that it actually happening.
You are posting in a discussion about a documented case of it happening.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about a crybaby pilot who was annoyed and turned around to stop and pout, not a laser shooting down an airliner.
Oh, for heaven's sake, nobody is claiming that handheld laser pointers are shooting down aircraft. There's a broad range of damage between blinding a pilot (even temporarily) and shooting down a 747 full of babies. It's simply dishonest to try to paint the discussion as an issue of "shooting down an airliner" when you know very well it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, I don't have to "Google" shit.
I personally know someone that used to fly into London for one of the major airlines. He wasn't even allowed to land the thing himself. So pilots in the UK wetting themselves over lasers doesn't impress me so much. Sounds more like the usual hysterical nonsense gripping the Brits lately.
I'm surprised it took them this long really...
Let the autopilot handle TO & Landings (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Those parts I think have to be done by humans AFAIK. Or at least the pilots keep claiming it so that they don't lose their job to automation.
Re:Let the autopilot handle TO & Landings (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't HAVE to no, but you really don't want your pilots sitting there pressing a couple of buttons and only getting actual hands on feel with the controls during emergencies. You need the pilots to actually interact with the plane regularly to keep them useful for when those things the autopilot actually cannot cope with arise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let the autopilot handle TO & Landings (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, a Cat. 3 ILS will bring the aircraft down to 150 ft. After that, the touchdown itself is still up to the pilot. Additionally, there is a good deal of preliminary work for the pilot to set up an instrument approach. But the equipment is expensive and not all runways are properly equipped. Also, equipment, both on the ground and the aircraft, can break; usually at the worst time. So the pilot still needs to be able to do a manual landing in any case. And that takes practice to stay proficient.
Re: (Score:2)
If the airport is equipped for autoland, many modern jets will take you right down to the ground, and I think that autoland capabilities are actually required for CAT III. As I understand it, you're still required to have a certain amount of visibility for a Cat III approach to ensure that the pilot would be capable of completing the landing in the event of an autopilot failure or whatever. That doesn't mean the pilot actually has to take over at those altitudes, just that conditions must be good enough
Re: (Score:2)
" First off, why shouldn't anybody fight that under any circumstances?" - Absolutely - Why have an ox pull your plow when your wife can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
We're ready [imgur.com] if you are.
First they came for our guns, (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they came for our knives, but I did not complain, because knives are scary!
Then they came for our laser pointers, but I did not complain, because they had the only guns and knives. Now they can take anything they want with impunity.
Re: (Score:3)
What if you went the other way though? Should we be worried about the government ban on buying and owning bombs? When bombs are illegal only criminals have bombs..?
Easy Solution (Score:3)
Then they came for our laser pointers, but I did not complain, because they had the only guns and knives.
This means we still have our laser guided, air to surface missiles. If so perhaps there is a simple solution to this problem...
Instead... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to imagine there are a bunch of existing laws that make this a serious offense. Just find the people that do this and come down hard on them. Then you can leave everyone else alone.
Barn door (Score:2)
Here are a couple of problems with that.
1. It is difficult to find the suspect as they could be in a few square mile area.
2. The damage has already been done so prosecution may not help the victims.
Many people will risk the consequences if the probability of getting caught is low enough.
Re: (Score:3)
The chance of a crime being committed depends on three factors: Punishment if caught vs. chance of being caught times gain of the crime.
And that's the problem: Where the fuck is the gain? Why risk an insane fine if there is no gain? Yes, there are assholes who would do it for no good reason other than "I can do it and be an asshole". Just give it a fine that borders on insane and you can easily divert offenders to blinding passing cars instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the possibility of being caught is near zero so any small thrill is enough of an incentive. The challenge of hitting an aircraft with a laser is enough of a thrill for some people and yes they are assholes. No matter how big the fine there will still be people who believe they will never get caught.
Another issue is that you are assuming people use valid risk assessment before doing things. For many people that is a false assumption as in "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this."
Re:Barn door (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the possibility of being caught is near zero so any small thrill is enough of an incentive. The challenge of hitting an aircraft with a laser is enough of a thrill for some people and yes they are assholes. No matter how big the fine there will still be people who believe they will never get caught.
Another issue is that you are assuming people use valid risk assessment before doing things. For many people that is a false assumption as in "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this."
Bingo. Deterrent effect is maximized by swiftness and certainty of punishment. Severity of punishment, as an independent variable, is not an effective knob to turn up deterrence**.
That is not only Just How Humans Work(TM), but is also borne out by plenty of studies (both short term "psych" studies, and long term sociological studies of criminal behavior). Regardless of how achievable this is in practice, the theory is pretty cut and dry: you'd be far better served by a program that upped the catch rate from 5% to 75% and gave everyone a £200 fine due in a week, than leaving the catch rate at 5% and raising the fine to £20,000.
**FWIW, a sufficiently severe punishment can, in the aggregate, act as a deterrent. The problem is, due to proportionality and cruelty concerns, the level of punishment may be higher than we're willing to stomach in a Western democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is difficult to find the suspect as they could be in a few square mile area.
Let's make it easier to catch them. A small camera* tied to the GPS system can capture an image of the source and calculate its source. Tie that to the ACARS [wikipedia.org] system and a ground-based app that can forward the information to the local authorities and it might be possible to get la enforcement on site within minutes.
*Perhaps an Android/iPhone app and a mounting bracket to point the camera phone out the cockpit window. Reporting back via cellular data link.
Re: (Score:2)
The damage has already been done so prosecution may not help the victims.
Prosecution is -- and should never be -- to benefit the victims. Prosecution exists to deter future crimes, not for vengeance. And generally, future crimes by new criminals, not future crimes by the criminals being prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
What I was attempting to point out is that crime prevention is more useful that prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
Just find the people that do this and come down hard on them.
Aye, there's the rub.
We have laws against talking on your cellphone while driving too. But the laws themselves don't stop anyone, as evidenced by the number of people who just go ahead and do it anyway. There has to be enforcement -- and that's always the hardest part, isn't it?
Suggestions?
Re: (Score:3)
There has to be enforcement -- and that's always the hardest part, isn't it? Suggestions?
Several people in the peanut gallery have already suggested ways to do it.
As these specific cases are happening near major airports, a few properly-installed cameras capable of detecting the laser strike can triangulate the ray's location automatically. The military already has tech for it in the field both for sniper bullets and laser-assisted sniper sights. Hook it laser location triangulation to contact law enforcement instantly and all kinds of enforcement opportunities appear. It likely costs a six-d
Airport Perimeter (Score:2)
I know this is the UK, but why isn't this a regulation like the FAA height and drone limitations near airports? We don't need to take away the devices, we need to deal appropriately with where they can, and in this case, cannot be used.
Re: (Score:3)
banned here already (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
[...] while they let him off with a warning my parents certainly didn't.
Good on your parents, mate! Wish more people had parents like yours!
Re: (Score:2)
Did they ban your pointy knives yet [snopes.com]? You're not safe until there are no pointy knives. Or blunt objects. Better ban those bats, pipes, and bits of lumber.
And fits!
Re: (Score:2)
He's not incorrect about the pointy knives. He might be wrong about the hemisphere though. Brits are certainly getting their panties in a bunch about knives these days. Dunno if that applies to the Aussies or not. Although bleeding heart liberals are probably birds of a feather. I can't wait for American Democrats to discover the evils of knives.
Re: banned here already (Score:5, Informative)
Knives have been banned in Australian public places since the 90s, unless you have a "reasonable excuse" to be carrying one, like a picnic, need it for your job, or you're taking it somewhere or whatever. It hasn't proved to be an issue.
Lasers aren't entirely banned here, but you do need a licence for anything over 1mW. I've had some cheap eBay imports confiscated when they tested as stronger than their 1mW description.
Re: (Score:2)
So Australian panties are definitely bunched as well. Like the GP said, birds of a feather.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no spoon.
Could they filter most common wavelengths? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could they apply some kind of filtration film to the inside of cockpit windscreens to block or at least mute the fairly narrow spectrum green lasers use?
I'm only a laser expert to the extent I read the wikipedia laser pointer page, so maybe this doesn't work. I guess I wouldn't expect it to be completely effective, but maybe enough to limit the risk to pilot vision?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Could they filter most common wavelengths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem of night-blindness. I've talked to pilots of police helicopters that have had green laser pointers shot into their cockpits, ruining their night vision while flying low-level in search of a suspect in areas filled with high-tension power wires (which are so good at taking out helicopters that most have large wire cutters above and below the windshield to give a chance at survival). That's straight-up attempted murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Even cheaper than that would be eye patches [mentalfloss.com].
Seriously, this problem has been solved for centuries. Why are we still discussing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This won't work. First, it won't work because green lasers are right in the middle of the visual spectrum, and a bandstop filter for this would not only be really hard, it would distort vision in general. Second, it won't work because there's NOT a "fairly narrow spectrum"- you can get lasers in a wide variety of colors, and if your goal is to attack pilots with them, you'll simply find one that their glass doesn't block.
They simply need to throw anyone who does this in prison for attempted murder of ever
Re:Could they filter most common wavelengths? (Score:5, Interesting)
This won't work. First, it won't work because green lasers are right in the middle of the visual spectrum, and a bandstop filter for this would not only be really hard, it would distort vision in general.
Old news. Dr. Nicholas Perricone already solved this problem. The glasses cost $400 a pair.
I can also think of about three ways to stop the coherent light with coatings and geometry, while letting non-coherent light through (but I've been thinking about these things since 1976, since I first suggested to the U.S. Air Force that lasers would make a great aerial active denial system, and did a test implementation.
The conversation started like this (with an Air Force bird colonel):
Me: "What's the most vulnerable part of any military aircraft?"
Him: "That would be the control surfaces."
Me: "Nope. It's the pilot's eyes."
I got a lot of visits after that.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like a good idea. Laser light is largely monochomatic, in that if 680mm, 532mm, 470mm, were filtered with a narrow bandpass filters the likelyhood is the pilots would be safe.
One of the greatest inventions of our lifetime, do you want to be prevented in owning it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally some sort of paint like used in road signs, although that stuff uses round glass beads and scatters too much light. Optical prisms like used on the retroreflectors left on the moon would work, although it's probably rather expensive. I thought I read something about reflective paint using embedded crystals which fo
The Laser is here to stay (Score:2)
Could a windshield be designed with polarization that mitigates the laser? If the problem of laser usage can't be avoided, maybe its effect can be mitigated through technology.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ingenious! Because nobody has ever taken apart a device to get at the internals before!
Re: (Score:2)
how many of those products emit actual laser beams outside the casing
Many. Laser pointers, surveying and leveling equipment, etc.
And don't forget those cool Christmas decorations. They can have my laser projector when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands!*
*Actually, I mount mine up in a tree pointing down at the house. Idiots who stick them in the lawn on a stake are asking for the neighborhood riff-raff to steal them.
This is why we can't have nice things (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet again, idiots armed with 'weapondry' they have no business having ruin it for the rest of the laser enthusiasts.
So, no more laser sighting. No more hobbyist access to lasers of any significant power. All because some idiots don't understand how dangerous these devices can be when aimed at the cockpit of an oncoming plane.
Fucking pisses me off that people can be so damned irresponsible.
Let's not let the legitimate uses be ignored (Score:4, Insightful)
These laser pointers are being used by a relatively small number of idiots/criminals, but being used by many for legitimate uses. They're fantastic for astronomy - many amateur astronomers use them to point out stars, constellations, nebulae, etc.
They're a great tool for astronomy education and outreach and that use is far more common than the criminal ones.
Side Effect (Score:3)
I always wondered why stars twinkled, turns out it's astronomy instructors briefly illuminating them with lasers.
Re: (Score:3)
They're fantastic for astronomy - many amateur astronomers use them to point out stars, constellations, nebulae, etc.
Great: Now you're potentially dazzling every pilot in an entire star system just to make it easier to teach your class.
Just because they're aliens doesn't mean that you shouldn't be concerned about their safety. What's worse, they might decide to come here and exact revenge on our planet for your hostile actions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I know of a case where had I had a laser I would have shone it at a plane.
The situation, out with a number of friends, (coincidentally, several Aerospace Engineers, and 2 pilots in training, one might have started later, but are now a pilot). Just laying down, well away from any airports, etc. Watching a meteor shower. I look away from the shower, and see a bright star, go huh, wonder what that is, then I'm distracted. I look that way a bit later, and it seems to have moved a little. Not visi
Re: (Score:2)
And a darkened police helicopter flies by and now you're one of those idiots/criminals/attempted murderers. See how easy they are to 'misuse'? Using them for star pointing is a potentially very dangerous use. They are a hazard any time they're pointed above eye level and even otherwise if there's anything shiny below that.
As much as I love lasers, I do understand how dangerous they can be. Unless you have a cheap red one they are ALWAYS dangerous.
Ok hang on... unless it's Blue Thunder, you'd hear it even if you couldn't see it, plus I'm pretty sure that police can't fly without running lights, same as everyone else.
I prefer a better approach (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't we start a war on stupidity and make a law where you can legally slap the shit out of idiots that would shine a laser pointer at an airplane...
You see someone stupid enough to do that, just walk up to them and start slapping. It's your Civic duty.
Retroreflectors (Score:2)
Around the cockpit windows. We'll shine one right back at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Around the cockpit windows. We'll shine one right back at you.
There's part of me that thinks some moron will shine laser pointers at aircraft just to see the reflectors sparkle.
All they need is multilayer dichroic reflectors. (Score:3)
This solution is 100% effective for common laser pointers whereas a ban will be as useless as a ban on pointy objects to stop stabbings. Sociopaths and fools will always find a way to get hold of such technology, particularly when the active part is so small and easily concealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that laser pointers are so common they've been given away as free tokens at trade shows for years. They're built into some commercial remotes. They're sold as cat toys.
Lasers for Blinding People Banned by Treaty (Score:4, Informative)
This will end well... (Score:2)
"...and over here, we handle the contingency where the number of members exceeds..."
"Police! Drop the laser pointer! On your knees!"
"I'm teaching a *class*!"
"Sir, you're holding an offensive weapon! Drop it and get on your knees or I will shoot!"
Re:During Takeoff? (Score:5, Informative)
So you're saying someone was level with the plane on the runway right? Cause either planes have windows in the floor or they take off upside down now. I just done see how a plane at a 45 degree angle or higher at takeoff gets a laser shot through the pilots window.
Guess maybe you have only been to one airport in your life and it didn't have buildings that elevate people to the same level as the windows of the pilots or even higher. Not to mention there are cities that have skyscrapers and high buildings not very far from airports. And heaven forbid that maybe some cities have hills by airports. But since you haven't seen that, I guess it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
First sensible post in this topic. At even a mile away hand shake is going to be dancing the beam around a huge area, and it is going to be pretty spread out unless it is something with a large lens and not a handheld laser. (Look up "diffraction limited" if that means nothing to you.) I have a hard time reconciling pilots reports of having their sight "dazzled" or even damaged, with how little power, and for how little time, the beam could have been entering their eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering this myself every time I read a story like this. Either it's like you describe, or I just don't know enough about how these lasers interact with planes to understand what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like he describes.
Re: (Score:3)
The plane reported the "incident" 5 or 6 miles after takeoff. So it was already pretty high at that point given the rate of climb. But yes, I agree: although we hear many tales of "laser attacks" on planes, nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone - let alone just one of the two pilots.
I could understand complaints of car drivers being dazzled,
Re: (Score:2)
nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone
Just how long is "long enough to dazzle anyone"?
let alone just one of the two pilots.
Quite possibly the other one was looking in another direction at the time.
But we almost never hear of these incidents (are they so common they don't count as news, or cause accidents - which would be newsworthy)
Or so uncommon because a) it's not as much "fun" for the perpetrators (no challenge in shining a laser at a car) and b) it'd be way easier to get caught.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:During Takeoff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Below 10,000 ft, airplanes are travelling at less than 250 mph. At takeoff, it's closer to 175 mph for a jet like a 737. At less than a perpendicular angle, the rate of travel across a field of view is less than that. If a person holds their arm out they can point with a lot of precision -- it's a lot easier than tracking an object at the same distance with binoculars. Furthermore, you must consider being at a distance away from the airplane. The greater the distance, the slower the plane is moving and the easier it is to aim at. Pointing straight up is rarely the issue, but if you're a mile away and the plane is on approach at say 2000 ft, that's only a 20 degree angle. Sitting in the cockpit of a 737, a pilot can see the edge of a taxiway -- the vertical field of view out the window is quite good. The lasers involved in these incidents are often much more powerful than a pen laser pointer and are many are strong enough to cause permanent eye damage. Unlike an incandescent bulb, lasers lose very little energy on the way to their targets. It's like those idiots on the highway who blind you with high beams at night, only much worse -- and I've had my night vision temporarily ruined by headlights a couple miles away. Lastly, there are lots of metal bits in a cockpit to reflect the laser, and the windshields are often marked by micro-abrasions from dust and insects, which can cause the whole windshield to glow.
Here is what it looks like from the cockpit [youtube.com]. Are pilots bullshitting? Try driving a car down an unlit rural road at night with that in your eyes and report back to us.
A 1 watt laser is enough to flash the ISS [universetoday.com]. It doesn't take much.
Re: (Score:2)
That video has HALF the truth there. the first part is real, the second half is faked in a simulator and someone flashing a laser pointer around in the cockpit.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What matters when it comes to tracking something is the speed at which the angle changes, not the speed at which the object is movi
Re: (Score:3)
The pilot of an A340 has a view that extends about 20 degrees below the horizon on the tarmac. I haven't been able to find out how steeply they climb, but 747s usually only do about 20 degrees. Please confirm whether or not you pulled that number out of your bum.
I can also exclusively reveal that cockpits have windows that let you look out to the sides, a view which is unaffected by takeoff angle.
Furthermore, planes sometimes execute banking turns shortly after takeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause either planes have windows in the floor or they take off upside down now.
You do realize that the pilots have a really good reason to be able to see the ground from where they sit in an airplane, right? Like, to be able to land, to be able to identify landmarks below them, etc. While instrument approaches are really convenient, unfortunately they tend to slow down the rate at which an airport can handle incoming aircraft, It is much faster to clear an aircraft for "the visual approach", which means they have to 1) see the airport, and 2) see ground reference points that may be pa
Re: (Score:2)
By law, there are no tall buildings overlooking the ends of runways. A four-story building would typically have to be almost a quarter mile from the edge of the airport property, by my math, to comply with height regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at Google Maps, that particular hotel is off to the side from the runway by just a bit. At the end of the runway, the height limits include only the width of the runway and a small margin on either side. The farther away you get, the farther out the height limits spread, and the taller the height limits are. So it probably avoids the height limits because it isn't actually in the flight path.
With that said, if the runway got extended later, it is also possible that it was simply grandfathered in
2th amendment is a USA thing (Score:2)
2th amendment is a USA thing
Re: (Score:2)
"The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is about the right to bear (fire)arms, not lasers."
Uhhh, nope, no it isn't. I challenge you to find any mention to *fire* arms in any rendition of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and I'm sure the pushers of that amendment were quite inclined not to limit themselves to firearms to the exclusion of swords, spears, bayonets or others.
That's exactly the point: these people want for laser pointers to be considered arms but once they are considered arms, t
FTFY (Score:2)
"Something is being used in a bad way! BAN IT!"
Re: What about this (Score:2)
Soon. There are nanophotonics coatings in the lab that should be able to shift frequencies on demand once the fabrication tech gets figured out.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the problem you think it is. It is easy and fairly cheap to make a narrow band-stop optical filter. http://www.omegafilters.com/ca... [omegafilters.com]
Knocking out a few narrow bands has little effect on the way the world looks.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a solved problem.
Pilots should wear laser safety glasses, or the wind shields should have LCD shutters.
Sounds safe...
dark glasses or auto darkening windows would just guarantee the pilots cant see the runway.
They may not be temporarily blinded but if the laser keeps the windhsield dark they still can't see the runway!
This may not be the answer, but a friend of mine did some work on a FLIR system, which would throw up an image of the exterior, properly sized and registered, on the inside of the glass during such times when you couldn't see out the windows. It was designed for heavy fog, but maybe there are other uses.