Feds crack down harder on 'lasing'. Yep, aircraft laser zapping... Really The FBI has announced it is extending a trial campaign that offers a reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of anyone indulging in "lasing" – the increasingly popular sport of zapping aircraft with lasers. Back in February, the Bureau decided it had had enough of this "dangerous crime", which in 2013 …
I'm surprised by the number of downvotes.
All I was saying - as someone with a logical/scientific mind - is that I prefer to see things proven by experimental evidence - not hearsay.
Arguably the reason we've had to switch off things like laptops on takeoff for the last 20 years is because of hearsay 'evidence' rather than basic scientific process/experiments.
Do the tests - if these prove that they do indeed cause pilots real visual problems, then take it from there.
My issue is simply that awarding draconian sentences based on nothing more than a 'witness statement' is not very good science.
No one is arguing that it is a fuckwitted thing to do.. however we've all done fuckwitted things in our day... I'd like to think that if I do something stupid, that I'd be getting punished because of a PROVED risk rather than a perception and/or personal statements.
Worrying evidence of this is that most 'reports' are just that - reports that they have been 'hit' but a laser. Since they have to report this by law - whether it affected them or not.
the article TheRealRoland posted is typical. It is based on the testimony of a single pilot - whose claims are just that - unsubstantiated claims, personal reports - notoriously unreliable evidence. I want to see proof - putting someone away for 14 years because a person says stuff happened, but can provide no evidence of the affect is not good for anyone imho.
Maybe this has real evidence of affect has been gathered experimentally, but the fact it is never referenced or quoted is, I think, telling.
These experiments have no need for flying to be invloved - simply angles, distance, etc. Prove the affect experimentally before putting people away for 14 years seems fair surely ?
The 14 years was not just based on this one incident. If i remember correctly, this person was out on parole, already had a couple of earlier warnings on his record, then lied about things, and even had his kids (or her kids) also play around with the laser. All that, combined with his latest action, caused the judge to sentence him for 14 years.
And a logical mind does not purport no evidence exists simply because its owner has not happened to stumble across it.
========
Try, for example:
http://www.laserstrikeprotection.com/pdf/Bulletins-n-Reports/ 4%20Effects%20of%20Laser%20Illum.%20on%20Op%20&%20Vis.%20Perf..pdf
A study which involved the FAA, experts in aviation medicine, and an Air Force research lab
=========
Or the case of Dana Christian Welch, sentenced to 30 months in 2009 for pointing a laser at large, commercial aircraft, resulting partly in the actual delay of a critical landing maneuver by an Alaska Airlines jet.
This was not an instance of anecdotal reporting by some hysterical, "unreliable" (to use your word) single pilot, but involved multiple, official reports by airport officials, air traffic controllers, law enforcement, regulatory agencies, aviation investigators, and MULTIPLE pilots - reporting in detail on an extended incident that could have caused a crash during the most crucial part of two separate commercial, passenger flights.
http://www.fbi.gov/losangeles/press-releases/2009/la110309a.htm
==========
Or note that crashes have been caused by OTHER sudden bursts of bright light, where the pilots involved were not incompetent, or novices. Flashblindness, loss of spatial orientation, temporary disorientation, etc., are cited as contributing to fatal and non-fatal accidents in case after documented case.
This is not based on "anecdotal" evidence, but competent, professional, detailed review by, e.g., the NTSB, which I presume you would consider a reliable and scientific source, if in fact you bother to read their actual reports, which are excellent.
A number of studies have collated and/or summarized this data - I cite only one for brevity, a review of NTSB and FAA accident reports, which states, in part:
"There were 58 reported mishaps that identified vision problems at night resulting from exposure to sources of bright light as a contribut- ing factor in the accident (n=30) or incident (n=28). The majority of accidents (n=17) occurred during the approach and landing phase of flight. Incidents occurred most frequently while taxiing (n=15) and during approach and landing (n=10)."
These are, in the main, NOT laser-related - nonetheless, the majority occur when aircraft are flying very low, or on the ground, precisely where a laser pointer will be at greatest strength and where an aircraft is at its most vulnerable, i.e., having the least amount of time to recover from even a brief distraction.
Included is extensive discussion of why this is a genuine PHYSIOLOGICAL issue, NOT a reflection of the pilot's competence or lack thereof. See:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a465917.pdf
==========
If you are interested in truly "scientific" inquiry, you might look into the military's research into dangers of night flying and primary causes of crashes, in both training and combat missions. Distraction is always a danger, regardless of the source. Distractions at crucial moments, when there is insufficient time to recover, can trip up the most expert pilots.
===========
Or you might try a PubMed search, which will turn up several papers discussing macular damage from green laser pointers - which I point out less in response to you, by the way, and more in response to some truly idiotic commenters, who tried to claim you could stare directly into a laser pointer for short periods without harm.
This might have been true with lower powered red lasers, and indeed, several studies determined standard, correctly manufactured red laser pointers were unlikely to cause permanent harm.
But doing this with a green laser has resulted in several cases of permanent, irreversible macular damage.
(too many citations to post here, but happy to oblige in another post if requested).
===========
And last: I have not even begun to cite studies done in countries other than the United States.
I leave that research to your fine, logical, scientific mind, which should therefore include a spirit of genuine enquiry and a desire for knowledge.
> I'm surprised by the number of downvotes.
> All I was saying - as someone with a logical/scientific mind - is that I prefer to see things proven by experimental evidence - not hearsay.
And I've already told you above: go and try it yourself. I have explained how you (or for that matter anyone else, with a willing instructor) can go about this.
Then imagine you're going three times faster than your little spamcan can muster on the approach and you've got 300 people in the back that your employer would much rather prefer to see alive after the flight, in case some of them might become repeat customers. They would also appreciate being able to reuse the plane, so there is quite a bit of motivation not to fuck up, aside from not really wanting to take part in an accident scene at which you will be the first to arrive. See if your "logical/scientific mind" can figure out why you don't really need some little cunt playing games with his laser pointer.
Amazing how many people have an opinion on something they know nothing about.
If you are not a pilot then you do not fully understand the challenge in flying an aircraft full of people, travelling at 150+ nmph, at night, in a cross-wind, onto a thin strip of tarmac without breaking aircraft or passengers, and therefore do not understand how a temporary loss of vision at a critical moment puts lives at risk.
And it is an aeroplane, not an airplane.
You MIGHT have a point....Except for the actual data, which contradicts your self-focused and unfortunately uninformed opinion.
Such as FAA documentation of 35 pilots in 2013 alone who sought medical attention after being lasered.
Also courtesy of the FAA, and citing numerous studies and statistics, a full report on laser problems and pilot/aircraft safety.
Please note particularly the green vs. red laser issue.
And more particularly, reports by PILOTS and airports of:
"...disorientation resulting in another pilot assuming control, aborted landings, loss of depth perception, and shutting down of runways due to multiple laser strikes."
www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/ laser_hazards_web.pdf
The full report is worth reading, but here is a quite useful bit:
"The latest reports indicate that aircraft illuminations by handheld lasers are primarily green (91%) in color, as opposed to red (6.3%), which was more common a few years ago. This is significant because the wavelength of most green lasers (532 nm) is close to the eye’s peak sensitivity when they are dark-adapted. A green laser may appear as much as 35 times brighter than a red laser of equal power output. Due to this heightened visibility and increased likelihood of adverse visual effects, illumination by green lasers may result in more events being reported.
Illumination reports often describe several types of adverse effects. These include visual effects (8.2%), pain and/or possible injury (1.6%), and operational problems (3.2%). Operational problems include momentary distraction, disorientation resulting in another pilot assuming control, aborted landings, loss of depth perception, and shutting down of runways due to multiple laser strikes. While only 16.5% of all cockpit illuminations occurred below 2,000 feet (Laser-Free Zone), these incidents accounted for 31% of all visual effects, 42% of all pain or injuries, and 42% of all operational problems reported. Low-attitude illuminations, therefore, result in a greater risk to aviation safety."
Haha, yeah nice. Confucius he say, karma's a b*t*h.
Shame they can't send nerve gas by laser beam yet, I can't think of a more deserving target than the eejits lasing aircraft for "fun".
Make it the nasty stuff that causes total loss of bodily function control resulting in a twitching, stinking mess yet does not actually kill them so they can still be sentenced to 50 years hard labour in a sweatshop.
I have a 5mW green laser pointer; legal to own in the UK but (I think) illegal to sell. Anyway, catch the beam in the eye (if it gets reflected in a mirror, for example) and I can report that you have a black spot in your vision for about 10 minutes afterwards. I can see why the Feds take this seriously.
Comparing apples with oranges. The plane and pilot are a lot further away than the distance between your mirror and your eye. By the time it reaches the cockpit the beam would probably be on the order of a metre across and the intensity an infinitesimal fraction of that you were unfortunate enough to experience.
Yet the pilot would be used to looking at very dim lighting (fully dilated pupils) and suddenly gets a (still pretty bright) flash of green or red light in the face. This IS going to be disorienting.
Try the comparison given in the article. Sit in your car, in the dark, with night-adjusted vision, and have someone fire a photography flash in your face (NOT WHILE DRIVING). Then see how long it takes before the afterimage has faded enough to be fully aware of everything in your surroundings again.
"Another, even more extreme, apples vs oranges comparison.
Next!"
If you would pull your head out of your ass and start looking at some of the research on this matter you might notice that this is pretty much the same effect! Most of the "how can it be a problem at that distance with such a small amount of power" comments are making (very incorrect) assumptions about beam spread and the behavior of laser light on a cockpit window. Even over longer distances a beam stays pretty well focused. So maybe we are talking about a beam of a meter and very little light. Just get your eyes fully night adjusted and test how little light you need for it to be "quite bright". Its VERY little.
I've given links to a lot of data elsewhere - but, basically, it's not an "apples vs oranges comparison". It's a very accurate, apt, relevant comparison.
Try educating yourself on a subject before firing off comments, and you'll be less likely to make a bunch of ignorant, inaccurate ones.
The distance is the point.
At 3 metres, the spot from a 5mW laser is pretty much still well focused. But solid state lasers do not collimate the light very well. At 20 metres, the spot will be more like a centimetre in size. At 1,500 metres, the 'spot' would be metres across. I'm not sure, but I think that 5mW will be spread across such an area so thinly that you would have difficulty seeing that it was hitting anything, let alone it dazzling a pilot.
Also be aware that you would have to be in front of the plane and on the flight path to actually get it to shine into the pilot's eyes. From below and/or to the side, the best you would get was to illuminate the roof of the pilots cabin, and from behind you could not shine it in the cabin at all.
Of course, the hand held lasers they are talking about may well be the high power (up to 2 watt - real scary) ones, and they would be much more likely to cause problems.
"Also be aware that you would have to be in front of the plane and on the flight path to actually get it to shine into the pilot's eyes. From below and/or to the side, the best you would get was to illuminate the roof of the pilots cabin, and from behind you could not shine it in the cabin at all."
Yes, the light does have to get to the cabin for it to be an issue, true. But particularly in small planes, the windows are a type of plexiglass which have a tendency to distort the view, particularly from collimated (or nearly-collimated) light (picture how looking top-down through water has a tendency to distort things). Simply having part of the light hit the window will have both a scattering and bending effect on the light, so you would only need to get "close enough" for the light to affect the pilot's night vision. This is exactly what happened to me.
Let's also get one thing straight, that when these incidents happen, it's clearly a deliberate act. I slightly deviated my flight path to try and locate the source on the ground (didn't have time to circle the area), and I could clearly see the shaft of light coming from the ground specifically searching the sky to illuminate my plane. The aiming motions of the light were not random. Any deliberate action to impair the capabilities of a pilot deserves criminal punishment. Sure, 14 years for *only* shining a laser at a plane is a bit excessive (unless it actually caused a crash or caused multiple injuries), but from someone with a history of not following the law, it sounds appropriate.
Some time ago I had occasion to test a green laser, 100mW IIRC, at night, on an industrial estate. One of those modules you could buy from DealExtreme until some five years ago or so. Pointed it at a building 250..300m away. Got a nice bright crisp dot, not as small as it would be at several tens of meters or closer, but maybe just a centimeter across, if that (compared it to the size of the lettering on their facade). At a kilometer it would be maybe illuminating a disc the size of a CD
The big problem with lasing airplanes is the gazillion tiny scratches in their windshields, causing dispersion in every which direction, including straight at the pilot's eyes. Not good.
In response to the down-votes to my earlier post, what I was trying to say was that the small <5mW finger sized laser pointers that post people might have picked up as curios over the last couple of decades or so are unlikely to be the devices used here. I admit that it is perfectly possible to obtain lasers with much greater power and better collimation than these.
I personally think that the use of lasers over a certain power should be licensed (I thought it was in the UK, but it appears not). Certainly, some of the YouTube videos of people being able to melt quite significant thickness's of plastic (one video shows holes melted in CD cases) using lasers in the 100-200mW range are sobering. And the >1W hand-held lasers really ought to be regarded as seriously dangerous.
Looking at the UK Health and Safety legislation, it looks like using any laser above the MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure) for the type of laser without the appropriate safeguards is illegal. The booklet HSE95 includes a section on "beam projection at roadways, occupied buildings and into aviation airspace" which defines what is acceptable, and what is likely to be acted upon by the authorities.
I must admit that I used to be interested in seeing how far a laser pointer could be seen from, especially when shone onto road signs (which reflect light back in the direction it came from) until I read this booklet!
Having personally been flying a plane and being hit with a laser strike, I can vouch that this is no joke, and people rightfully should be jailed for doing so. Remember, it's not just commercial jets, but ALL planes in the sky. Helicopters, small jets, large jets, small piston engines, etc. The small planes are also typically flying lower, so the apparent brightness of the laser will be greater than a plane flying at a higher altitude.
In my particular case, I was flying back home at night, about 30 miles out from the airport. I was fairly low (about 3000 feet, if I recall), but precisely where air traffic control wanted me. Being night and at the end of a two hour flight, I had the interior lights dimmed very low since my eyes were well adjusted to the low light conditions, and keeping them low ensures I can see other air traffic at night. I noticed a flash out of the corner of my eye, which drew my attention toward it. I assumed it was another aircraft's night lighting, so I was looking around to locate the light. It was during this point that I saw another bright green light which appeared to be coming from below me, and when I turned my gaze toward it, the light became quite a bit brighter. I then realized it was someone on the ground shining a laser at my plane. Fortunately, I was able to shift my gaze away from the third lasing of my plane before it could degrade my night vision much more. If I hadn't realized what it was in time to shift my gaze away, it easily could have dramatically reduced my night vision. It can take up to 30 minutes from the time the eye encounters a bright light to gain back the full night vision acuity, and in a plane traveling 2 miles a minute or more, that's a lot of ground to cover with degraded night vision.
I agree to an extent that it is difficult to comprehend why it should be any worse to point a laser at a plane than it is to have: cyclists with lights so bright that if they were on a car they would need to be dipped; cars such as modern Landrover products with lights so bright, and at the right height to be at eye-level, that they seem to be white lasers; and the number of cars with failed leveller motors so that dip beam looks like main beam. However, as someone else has mentioned, there is always the option to stop your car, which doesn't exist in plane. A plane crash also has a bigger chance of being catastrophic than a car crash.
14 years still seems excessive.
Yes, he was on parole, yes he did something (else) stupid, yes he recklessly endangered lives.
But 14 years?
The statutory MAXIMUM sentence someone convicted of sexual assault of a minor in the USA is 10 years.
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/199503_Federal_Rape_Cases.pdf
The average is 2-3 years. The crime just doesn't seem to fit the sentence in this case.
Don't mistake this for me condoning his actions, far from it.
I'm just saying someone can rape a little girl and be jailed for less time...that doesn't seem right.
You're citing a federal statutory penalty for rape of a minor. The vast majority of rape cases are prosecuted under state/commonwealth law which varies across the 50 states. To pick two states, Texas's rape of minors can be punished between prison sentences of 2 years - 20 years and Colorado's sentencing guidelines typically run 2 years - life sentences depending on the circumstances of the crime.
May I suggest that anyone who has never landed a real aeroplane should think carefully before commenting. Landing an aeroplane may look easy, but it's a very difficult thing to do, requiring a lot of skill and intense concentration. You are trying to keep a fast-moving, rapidly descending machine on a very precise path through the air, whilst being driven in all directions by wind, thermals, downdrafts, wind-shear and all sorts of other factors. In addition to steering the thing, there are other vital tasks which have to be performed during this very busy period. Swerving out of the way of the laser is simply not possible - you have to hold to your glide slope precisely. As well as mucking up your landing, you may well collide with another aircraft on a parallel runway. Wearing coloured glasses is not practical - you have to be able to see coloured lights, both within the aircraft and outside. For example, in the event of radio failure (not that uncommon - it's happened to me), the tower will use coloured lights to communicate to the pilot. Any idiot who tries to blind the pilot in this way is attempting murder, whether he accepts this or not. I'm all in favour of heavy penalties.
I find it difficult to accept the "intending murder" aspect, given the requirements in most common law countries. Criminal act manslaughter is the highest I can come up with in the UK context, maybe culpable homicide in the US?
Let's save murder for the worst acts of deliberate killing, eh? (I never have agreed with death from intentional GBH being counted as murder.)
I on the other hand regard death from intentional GBH as being murder; it is almost impossible to prove intention, and kicking someone's head in is likely to result in death or a condition to which somepeople might prefer death.
Somebody who does something which could cause the death of several hundred innocent people should be judged on the potential outcome; if they are too stupid to understand what could happen, locking up for life would seem to make society a safer place.
As for those women who starved a large aggressive dog which then killed an OAP, a year (out in 6 months) seems pretty low. People who don't understand basic cause and effect really shouldn't be allowed near guns, lasers, cars or dogs, and currently the only effective way we have of dealing with this is to lock them up. If someone could find an effective, kinder and less expensive solution, I'd probably support it.
... lots of people can't hit a target at 100ft with a handgun (without proper training, visit a target range some day), but just give them a laser beam... they can hit a plane's cockpit over 2 miles away.
In this case, as a pilot, do you feel safer when the general population own guns instead of laser pointers?
You only get a shot or two with a pistol before someone calls the cops. The laser is silent, and continuous, so you can "walk it in", right into the pilot's eyes.
Personally, I don't want to try to land my airplane with my eyes shut, and I really do feel that anyone who would deliberately blind a pilot should be charged with attempted murder and prosecuted accordingly, to the fullest extent of the law.
All fun and games until someone dies.
Ohmygod; where to start with this one?
1) Bullets are subject to gravity and wind, laser beams aren't. A shooter has to be able to take those factors into account.
2) When you pull the trigger, the gun moves due to that explosion/ejection thing happening inside it; you have to be able to hold the gun steady until the bullet exits the barrel. Very hard to do. No recoil with a laser.
3) You get one bullet at a time, while the laser is a firehose you can spray around until you hit the target.
Failed Analogy 101 you did.
Again you should try.
Why cheap laser pointers were ever allowed to be sold to the public is still something I don't understand.
Lasers are dangerous. Period. The lowest powered laser can permanently damage your eye in less than a second.
They are NOT toys.
Interfering with flight operations is a serious crime for good reason.
I'm amazed by the number of people arguing against such regulations. Like somehow the evil government is depriving them of some inalienable right to point laser pointers wherever they please.
All rights are tradeoffs between their value to an individual* vs their cost to society. As far as I can see, illuminating aircraft with lasers has zero value. And while the cost of the resulting damage times its probability isn't high, comparing that to zero still gives a pretty easily computed result.
*Using the 'reasonable person' doctrine. Sure, you might think its a good idea. But consensus says no and that's what we base our laws on.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
