back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Meh

    Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to legislate against stupidity.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Smart Bombs???

      Laser guided.

      Just sayin.............

    2. 's water music

      Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to legislate against stupidity.

      Au contraire. It's enforcement that is a bitch.

    3. John Bailey

      "Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to legislate against stupidity."

      It is however, quite possible to punish the stupid once caught.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What about infra-red lasers, difficult to justify the impact on commercial aircraft (even though it's difficult to see how they can have the focus and angle of attack on an aircraft body other than say, a police helicopter anyway)

      Highly likely to piss off military/police use of the frequency, a little harder to sell to the population. What is the maximum focus of a civilian laser through a scattering atmosphere

      What about when lasers become more powerful, more threatening to the police/military in a civilian revolt, then they have a nice archaic law everybody as forgotten about to future proof and vastly out manoeuvre the right to bear arms, powered by new military lasers, microwave crowd dispersal units and so on

      People are stupid and should be reprimanded for stupidity, but the current wave of authoritarianism sweeping the world is frankly chilling

  2. John Riddoch
    WTF?

    14 years?

    While I appreciate the potential risks & repercussions such actions invoke, there are probably people convicted of manslaughter with a shorter prison term. It does seem to be an excessive punishment for the actions...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 14 years?

      All well and good, until some pleb brings a Jumbo down on the main terminal because the pilots were blinded by his stupid laser pen.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 14 years?

        Consider the fact that airplanes now a days pretty much land on auto-pilot, specifically for safety reasons. So the laser doesn't really have much chance of crashing it then.

        As for when they are in the air, if you crash because you were blinded for a few seconds, you shouldn't be flying in the first place.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 14 years?

          And when flying a helicopter?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 14 years?

          My dear fellow AC

          > Consider the fact that airplanes [load of bollocks snipped]

          Please consider the fact that you should not be talking so liberally about things you know absolutely nothing about. Every single statement that you have posted is incorrect.

          Thank you.

          /A former commercial pilot.

        3. RPF

          Re: 14 years?

          No they don't; the vast majority are hand-flown for at least the last few miles.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 14 years? @Jumbo crash

        All well and good, until some pleb brings a Jumbo down on the main terminal because the pilots were blinded by his stupid laser pen.

        And the likelihood of an instantaneous exposure, lasting well short of a second, from a single laser pointer doing that is??

        Near zero, I'd say.

        Consider exhibit A, from the Egypt protests in 2013 when hundreds of people illuminated slow-moving passing helicopters for minutes at a time:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfagq8PjpM

        Can't remember any of those birds coming crashing down!

        1. Jim 59

          Re: 14 years? @Jumbo crash

          Egyptian helicopters - IIRC the protestors were only illuminating the aircraft body, not targeting the pilot.

          1. Steve Evans

            Re: 14 years? @Jumbo crash

            "Egyptian helicopters - IIRC the protesters were only illuminating the aircraft body, not targeting the pilot."

            Are you claiming that at half a mile distance, you can hold a laser pointer steady enough to only illuminate a specific part of a moving aircraft?!

            The light was dancing all over the place!

            I think the whole claims of causing a commercial airline crash are dubious at best.

            1) Commercial aircraft windows are generally on the top, not the bottom, so you're not going to get a "direct shot".

            2) You can't target a pilot with a hand held laser, you might whizz past him a few times.

            3) Pressurised windows are rather thick, so the tiny laser point will be defused. Add a bit of dirt/moisture and it's reduced even more

            4) Comparing a laser to a camera flash is just laughable... If the laser lit up the entire cabin then you are admitting it's defused enormously. A few milliwatts from a laser defused to that extent would vanish. A flash gun dumps a huge amount of power to produce its illumination for 1/1000th second. You can't have both "blinding" and "huge coverage" from a low power source.

            5) You are assuming the pilot is actually doing something important during landing... Got news for you... Most of the time they're not. Pilots are there for the occasions when the autopilot can't handle a situation. 99% of the time the plane will land itself.

            I'm sure I'll collect a load of anonymous down votes, which is incredibly brave of you, but please, if you have something to add/correct, let's have a discussion!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 14 years? @Jumbo crash

          And the likelihood of an instantaneous exposure, lasting well short of a second, from a single laser pointer doing that is??

          Frigging high. Lasers are a concentrated light source, and it can take several seconds to recover simply from secondary exposure. A direct hit in the eye (for instance, by reflecting off a scratch in the material) can result in permanent damage. If you think that isn't the case, prove it by torching your own eyeballs, which has as extra benefit that it will stop you from posting this sort of drivel.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: 14 years? @Jumbo crash

            "A direct hit in the eye (for instance, by reflecting off a scratch in the material) can result in permanent damage."

            Moreover in the dark, a hit in the eye from a decent powered laser fucking hurts, even if it's only a brief flash from half a mile away.

            That's personal experience from some twat lasing cars along a stretch of road I drive - and several drivers who were hit swerved into adjacent lanes, which is a good warning about what might happen eventually.

          2. Dr Dan Holdsworth

            Re: 14 years? @Jumbo crash

            I've had the experience of some stupid bastard trying this on me, whilst I was driving a car. In my case, it was a low-powered red laser, the moron was a good few hundred yards away and had really crap aim and was to one side of me, so he only got one eye very briefly.

            However, it is blindingly bright. You literally cannot see a bloody thing except the laser, and had it not been a nice straight section of the A56 near Accrington on a quiet evening, the temptation would have been to jump on the brakes simply to slow down to a safe speed.

            In an aircraft, with dark-adapted eyes, with a green laser (a colour to which human eyes are much more sensitive) probably of illegally-high power, the effect must be devastating.

    2. Steve Todd

      Re: 14 years?

      Wasn't just because of the laser attack. He was on probation already and had a history of bad behaviour. He got 14 years because of the combination of those things.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 14 years?

      Just blind the tosser with his own pen. An eye for an eye if you will.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 14 years?

      You know that the US makes alot of stuff in prisons which means they do not have to import stuff. Laws such as the 3 strikes law and stupid long prison terms like this mean a large slave workforce. Sorry I mean prison workforce.

      You have to make sure you have lots of workers for people to make a profit off.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 14 years?

        You know that the US makes alot of stuff in prisons which means they do not have to import stuff.

        I have a hard time believing that it's cheaper to incarcerate individuals for the purposes of manufacturing license plates than it would be to hire a factory in china/taiwan/s.korea to stamp them out.

        1. Nolveys
          IT Angle

          Re: 14 years?

          > I have a hard time believing that it's cheaper to incarcerate individuals for the purposes of manufacturing license plates than it would be to hire a factory in china/taiwan/s.korea to stamp them out.

          Cheaper for whom? Unkie Sam and his unlimited credit? The towns who petition to have prisons opened in or near them for employment purposes? The private corporations who are paid by the government and get their own private work forces out of it? Law enforcement/the courts, who get to keep that cheddar wagon rolling with a constant stream of non-violent drug offenders who get put away again and again?

          The prison industry in the US is so far off the reservation that it doesn't remember what it looks like. At least it's consistent with every other aspect of the modern day US economy.

          Mind, shooting a laser at a commercial airliner with 100s of people on it is a right arse thing to do, definitely worthy of some stern treatment. I think it's time for someone to develop a laser-guided anvil.

      2. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

        Re: 14 years?

        "prison terms like this mean a large slave workforce."

        So I'd deprive the exploitative bastards of a cheap source of labor by not shining lasers at aircraft. That ought to tech them a lesson.

    5. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: 14 years?

      If you lase the cockpit of a transport aircraft carrying up to 400 people whilst on finals, 14 years is the low end of what you should be getting.

    6. cordwainer 1

      Re: 14 years?

      Not necessarily excessive for deliberately doing something that could have caused two helicopters to crash - i.e., multiple people to die.

      Part of a sentence involves premeditation and intent, as well as potential for grievous harm. A shorter sentence for some cases of manslaughter is based obviously partly on lack of premeditation, and other extenuating circumstances, judged on a case-by-case basis. Whereas, had the laser idiot succeeded in causing a crash, he could possibly have been charged with actual murder, and multiple counts thereof.

      That said: it's also obvious a message is being sent (given the potential disastrous consequences). As well, this is the US prison system - meaning the guy is likely to be out in much less time. It's quite unlikely he'll serve the entire 14 years.

  3. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    A solution is at hand.

    Lamda Guard Inc., has *just* (like, as in, yesterday) announced nano-tech, meta-materials (plenty of nifty keywords) light filter films that would protect aircraft flight crews from laser light attacks. The films would presumably be applied to the cockpit windows in much the same way that tinting films are applied to car windows, except with much more Airworthiness paperwork. The technology allows the film to be designed (at the nano scale) to block green and blue wavelengths as used with common lasers.

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1211766-dartmouth-firm-lamda-guard-to-announce-deal-with-airbus

    1. S4qFBxkFFg

      Re: A solution is at hand.

      That sounds impressive - if it can block all commercially available laser wavelengths, without blocking an unacceptable level of the rest of the spectrum (it's still nice for pilots to be able to tell what colour of lights they're seeing outside the windows) then the problem is solved.

      I'd even want glasses with this in; it scares me to think what a nutter with one of the higher powered pointers could do if they were to intentionally shine it in people's eyes, just walking down the street for instance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A solution is at hand.

        If that doesn't work out, another solution would be covering the front windows with removable monitors that display images collected by cameras on the outside. If the cameras get damaged/dirty or a monitor malfunctions, it can be removed and set aside and they're no worse off than they are today.

        Or the pilots could wear HUD helmets like in the F35, and they wouldn't need windows at all.

      2. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: A solution is at hand. @ S4qFBxkFFg

        "... it scares me to think what a nutter with one of the higher powered pointers could do if they were to intentionally shine it in people's eyes ..."

        I had this happen some years ago, admittedly when laser pointers were a lot less powerful and only came in red (thankfully). A bunch of kids were standing on the edge of a traffic roundabout, and one of them had a laser pointer s/he was shining into drivers' eyes. (I had typed more, but I don't want to risk giving stupid people ideas)

    2. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

      Re: A solution is at hand.

      Pilots could also affix a strip of retro-reflective material in an unobtrusive location inside the cockpit window. Give the b*stards a taste of their own medicine.

      1. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: A solution is at hand.

        I don't think that the approach that you've described would have the devastating counter-measures effect on the miscreants that you envision it would. At best, it might provide the miscreants some useful visual feedback (a wee little glowing dot of slightly brighter reflection) for more-accurate aiming.

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. NumptyScrub

      Re: Empathy Test

      quote: "Picture this, you're flying a passenger jet. At least once every day you get dazzled, you don't know when or if its going to happen on any given approach or after take off.

      Suddenly you can only see green light. What are you feeling having just been dazzled?

      Its just me but I'd probably snap and find a machete.

      Dazzle the perps at random intervals for 14 years I say."

      Really? To play devils advocate, I would suggest that drivers who fail (or refuse) to switch their headlights to dipped from full beam (aka high-beams) when faced with oncoming vehicles endanger far more people each year than anyone shining lasers at aircraft.

      People are always happy to suggest draconian punishments for something they don't think they'll ever be guilty of. The real test is whether they are still comfortable with such punishment if it is something they could easily become guilty of. So in that vein: are you are willing to extend your cruel-and-unusual punishment suggestion to all people who are endangering those travelling in a vehicle by dazzling them needlessly? Do you think a 2+ year custodial sentence, or random blinding over a 14 year period, is appropriate for anyone who dazzles people in charge of a passenger vehicle, regardless of whether it is an aeroplane or Ford Fiesta, and regardless of whether the cause was simply them "forgetting" to switch to dipped beam in their own vehicle?

      Might be worth remembering that aeroplanes have autopilots that can now handle takeoff and landing hands free, so pilots rarely have to use manual controls. Cars have no such mitigation mechanism for an incapacitated driver (currently) ;)

      (Yes, I regularly get blinded by oncoming traffic, and yes, it does piss me off, and furthermore yes, I do believe that blinding oncoming vehicles is just as dangerous and life-endangering as blinding pilots in planes, if not more so. One thoughtless driver can easily dazzle 10 or more vehicles in a single journey, which would be 10-40 potential victims)

      1. Jim 59

        Re: Empathy Test

        @ NumptyScrub putting 500 people at risk for amusement is worse than putting 2 people at risk accidentally, hence the difference in punishment.

        I agree car headlights are dangerous, and even dipped beams can be uncomfortable for oncoming drivers. The difference is that a car can slow down or stop, an airliner can't. And as headlight dazzle is part and parcel of driving, drivers are used to dealing with it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Empathy Test

        > Might be worth remembering that aeroplanes have autopilots that can now handle takeoff and landing hands free,

        No they don't. There is no such thing as an automatic take-off, and autolands require both the aircraft and the airport to be equipped and certified, and cockpit crew must be trained, certified, and current, as well as special procedures have to be in place (LVP). This is only done when no other choice is left because of crap visibility, or to meet currency requirements by certified crew. Amongst other things, LVP reduce an airport's landing capacity so neither airport operators nor airlines nor passengers like it. The vast majority of airports, aircraft, and crew are NOT capable of performing autolands. I for one never did one--the only time I've experienced them was paxing on the back.

        > so pilots rarely have to use manual controls

        The hell we don't have to.

  5. Tom_
    Alert

    They should just fit lasers to the aircraft that swivel around and point straight back at the guy on the ground. But they should be a couple of orders of magnitude brighter.

    I mean, not really, but still...

    1. Sceptic Tank Silver badge
      Terminator

      Maybe just a high-res camera that takes pictures of the area where the flash came from for later identification of the perps?

      And maybe a dart-gun (a variation of the type that vets use) for incapacitating the suspect until the men in blue can pick him up for questioning. A vet can revive him at the p'lice station.

      Ok, maybe not the darting...

      1. Martin Maloney
        Coat

        If the perp managed to get out of the way fast enough, would he be (I'm SO ashamed!) a Dart Evader?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You'd be tempted too...

    if you had to put up with low-flying plod buzzing the area for hours. I'm sure they do it sometimes for the hell of it.

    Either that or a laser-guided missile.

    1. Emperor Zarg
      Joke

      Re: You'd be tempted too...

      Try to move to a more select part of town.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You'd be tempted too...

      Must confess that it was only laziness that prevented me from spelling out 'fuck off' in Xmas lights on the roof.

  7. Ralph B

    Alternatively

    They could advise pilots to buy a pair of glasses.

    1. TheRealRoland
      Happy

      Re: Alternatively

      > they could advise <insert here>

      So I guess i'll be waiting to cross when i have a green light - it's a better solution than cracking down on running-red-lighters, right?

      1. Ralph B

        Re: Alternatively

        So I guess i'll be waiting to cross when i have a green light - it's a better solution than cracking down on running-red-lighters, right?

        So, I assume you're also waiting for the police to remove all the bad drivers from the road, rather than wear a safety belt?

  8. stu 4

    not convinvced

    I'm really not convinced how these can cause any real problems for a pilot.

    Even assuming the pilot is on finals, the laser must be a mile away at least, and can only very passingly be pointed directly at the pilots eyes (behind inch thick angled glass).

    I imagine we have all been unfortunate enough at having a laser pointer shone at us at one point in the past, and annoying as it was, I wasn't blinded and stumbling for minutes afterwards.

    I'd like to see some actual proof that they DO affect cockpit visibility other than anecdotal reports from pilots, who frankly, are not the most reliable of people to tell you about things happening in flight

    In fact, this seems a great thing for Mythbusters to look into...

    stu (a pilot)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: not convinvced

      "In fact, this seems a great thing for Mythbusters to look into..."

      And you're volunteering to be the guinea pig? Good man!

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: not convinvced

      @ stu 4

      Isnt the distance the problem? At a short distance you have a small dot. At a long distance through the cockpit window you have a complete green light effect? Also if it is done at night you have the great change from darkness who WTF my eyes.

    3. TheRealRoland

      Re: not convinvced

      @stu 4

      It sounds like you already made up your mind ("i didn't get hurt, so why should others", right?).

      Still, read this article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/blinding-light-the-us-crackdown-on-not-so-harmless-laser-strikes/

      A bit more background info on what pilots see and feel, and how it will impact their work.

      And i'm sure with a little bit of googling, more info will show up.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: not convinvced

      Stu, it's never happened to me but lots of my colleagues complained about this being a frequent occurrence in London. The actual blinding is not so much of a problem (in my opinion) as the loss of concentration at a time when you need it.

      As you are a recreational pilot, I assume that you do not do a lot of night flying. However, if you get the chance you can test this yourself (carefully!) by having a friend on the ground briefly point a laser at you during a night approach (go up with an instructor if you are not night qualified).

      1. stu 4

        Re: not convinvced

        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 ?

        1. TheRealRoland

          Re: not convinvced

          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.

        2. cordwainer 1

          A truly scientific mind is not too lazy to do research before arriving at a conclusion.

          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.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: not convinvced

          > 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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: not convinvced

            I wish I could upvote your post multiple times for verily dripping with sarcasm (aside from the good points you make)...

        4. Mark C 2

          Re: not convinvced

          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.

    5. cordwainer 1
      FAIL

      Re: not convinvced

      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."

  9. Carl

    Smartbombs

    Know how to fly down a laserlight cone.

    Just saying.

  10. Crisp

    How steady does your hand have to be to take down a plane with a laser pointer?

    I'm guessing that it would be slightly easier with one of those powerful 2W green lasers.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. smartbombs

    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.

  12. Zog The Undeniable
    Black Helicopters

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ Zog The Undeniable

      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.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: @ Zog The Undeniable

        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ imanidiot

          Sit in your car, in the dark, with night-adjusted vision, and have someone fire a photography flash in your face

          Another, even more extreme, apples vs oranges comparison.

          Next!

          1. imanidiot Silver badge

            Re: @ imanidiot

            "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.

          2. cordwainer 1

            Re: @ imanidiot not according to actual studies, experiments, etc.

            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.

    2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      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.

      1. Gary B.

        "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.

      2. Stoneshop

        Distance

        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.

      3. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        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!

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    True

    You can't legislate against stupidity but you can keep scum off the streets and in prison for a long time.

  14. Gary B.

    This is no joke

    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.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI7Qq1mYQlI

    or

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR_kGG3GLpk

  16. Chad H.

    Would the author mind if I randomly shone a bright light into his eyes on the drove home? Not as if its "Dangerous" behaviour after all....

    1. Cynic_999

      I often get bright lights shone into my eyes on my drive home at night. Oncoming headlights, floodlights at night road works, cyclists and pedestrians carrying bright torches. Not to mention the bright flashes from Gatsos ...

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        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.

  17. Tempest8008
    Childcatcher

    Even with the priors...

    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.

    1. O RLY

      Re: Even with the priors...

      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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Even with the priors...

      > 14 years still seems excessive.

      Be thankful then he wasn't accused of copyright infringement, or he'd still be in prison by the time we've all fucked off to Mars.

  18. sisk

    I could be wrong, having never actually been on an aircraft in flight, but wouldn't it be exceedingly difficult to get a laser into the eyes of the pilot of an aircraft in flight from the ground?

    1. imanidiot Silver badge

      You don't have to hit the pilots eye. refraction on the windscreen and illumination of the interior is enough to degrade night vision acuity.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Dorks with frickin' lasers in their hands!

    I say throw em' into a pool with the sharks. Gets rid of the problem and we get an awesome byproduct!

    (I for one welcome our laser-wielding shark overlords!)

  20. gskr
    Mushroom

    How about this plane?

    Get the YAL-1 Airborne Laser test bed back in the air.... and then adopt a return fire policy :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

  21. Clive Harris
    Black Helicopters

    Try landing a real aeroplane before commenting

    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.

    1. RPF

      Re: Try landing a real aeroplane before commenting

      Well said, particularly the last two sentences.

      p.s. Yes I have landed real aircraft...many types and many times.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Try landing a real aeroplane before commenting

        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.)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Try landing a real aeroplane before commenting

          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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Try landing a real aeroplane before commenting

      > Landing an aeroplane may look easy, but it's a very difficult thing to do

      Well, not really. Landing is pretty easy. All the training goes into making sure the aeroplane is still usable after the event.

      1. Clive Harris

        Re: Landing is pretty easy

        A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when they can still use the aeroplane afterwards.

        There are two kinds of pilots: those who have landed with the wheels up, and those who are going to land with the wheels up.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Targeting...

    ... 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?

    1. Miami Mike

      Re: Targeting...

      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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Targeting...

      > lots of people can't hit a target at 100ft with a handgun

      Well, it's a pretty far throw. Most people with a handgun will probably try shooting at the target first anyway.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Targeting...

      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.

  23. ecofeco Silver badge

    Lasers are danergous. Period

    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.

  24. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Amazed

    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.

  25. JaitcH
    Meh

    Lasers with outputs up to 10W available in China - over the counter

    Last time I was in ShangHai I picked up 4 watt green and blue lasers - from a retail outlet store.

    There were others with outputs as high as 10 watts on sale. Some of these can burn skin at a distance!

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Really?

    Ironically this might be far worse, seems that a lot of the cheap modules are just too small to detect.

    Also many senders now put the laser in packs of alkaline batteries to (a) save on postage and (b) so it doesen't get stopped by Customs.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like