FAA: Laser incidents soar, threaten planes

[Shadetree Engineer]

This is in response to both of

LSRFAQ & Shadetree Engineer

I think your correct it is restarted honestly and can't "Really Hurt them"

But honestly why do it? If it's getting bad attention and could effect how we get to use our Hobby and well spent $$ then I think it's worth it to just have people stop doing it and to promote to not do it to others.

As pointed out we will never stop the flood of morons out there who need to do this or think it's fun and not harmful. But it is harmful to our hobby, and the less doing it the less they can call foul

I never meant to imply that we should try to find a safe way to shoot planes with lasers, I just have a hard time trusting tabloids with this kind of story. But it seems the tabloids are not the only source, as mentioned by LSRFAQ I was only concerned that there wasn't any real information, but it seems that it's only that I haven't been a member here soon enough?

Maybe we should consider treating handheld lasers in the same manner as a licensed handgun? An outright ban does not serve our interests, but some means of regulation does.

 

[Krogith]

I never meant to imply that we should try to find a safe way to shoot planes with lasers, I just have a hard time trusting tabloids with this kind of story. But it seems the tabloids are not the only source, as mentioned by LSRFAQ I was only concerned that there wasn't any real information, but it seems that it's only that I haven't been a member here soon enough?

Maybe we should consider treating handheld lasers in the same manner as a licensed handgun? An outright ban does not serve our interests, but some means of regulation does.

No a laser isn't in the same category as a hand gun. As lasers can't kill. But we as a community should really start getting into the act of legally defending our hobby and start banning together and informing the use of and the rights we have. Other wise 12 year old idiots shooting at planes are going to get some ban of some sort because "planes could crash to the ground" :crackup::crackup:

I do hate our media... There non educated people spouting off wastes of hot air most of the time.

 

[Shadetree Engineer]

No a laser isn't in the same category as a hand gun. As lasers can't kill. But we as a community should really start getting into the act of legally defending our hobby and start banning together and informing the use of and the rights we have. Other wise 12 year old idiots shooting at planes are going to get some ban of some sort because "planes could crash to the ground" :crackup::crackup:

I do hate our media... There non educated people spouting off wastes of hot air most of the time.

Maybe not a killing thing, but I think any laser that qualifies as more powerful than a presentation pointer just might need to have something like a federal license, in the same manner as a handgun.

Criminals will still shoot planes, even after all lasers are banned. So a ban isn't a good answer, yet it might be seen as a good enough answer because likely the overall reduction in lasers available as a result from a ban will have a real affect on how many planes get tagged.

So shouldn't handheld lasers be regulated by the BATF? Because there's too many idiots to pretend that we can just spread the word to just stop doing it. Maybe each one of us can change the minds of fifty random strangers in the next few years, but a couple hundred idiots with tomorrows laser tech is all it takes to declare a nationwide emergency.

 

[aryntha]

Shadetree,

Just an aside: The "The windows are on the top, how can a laser get into them from underneath" is one of the recurring "blue-in-the-face" comments that comes up every time this subject is broached on these forums.

I get exhasperated re-telling it. (In a month or so there will be another such thread, where someone will say 'but the cockpit windows are on the top!" I guarantee this.) -- But it's pretty simple.

When we're in the cockpit, we have to see the ground, as we have to navigate and land. We do not just see "from the horizon up". This would make flying impossible. In reality, only a 20-25 degree "shadow" of ground is obscured from our vision in the cockpit.

The only way the oft-broadcasted "But the windows are on the TOP!" premise would work, is if you were directly under the aircraft and shining the laser straight up.

And even if that was the case, it would not be several seconds later, and the plane would be at a vulnerable angle.

I'm a pilot, and I've been illuminated; specifically over the CU Denver Auraria Campus.

I have known several people whose first remarks upon discovering powerful handheld lasers was simply, "I bet I could hit a plane with this thing!" -- It is not uncommon. I don't think it's malicious. I think they simply don't think it through. To them, a plane is a "far away object", and they want to "see how far the laser goes". I don't think it goes much further than that.

I mean, I meet people who actually think that ATC controls the movement of the plane. It' s an unknown to most, and i think that the reason that illumination incidents are increasing is simply because lasers are cheaper and more available, and a plane is generally the "furthest thing away someone can try to hit".

(It does however get a bit more pernicious, I think, when most of the hits take place at airports right during landing and takeoff. That's someone 'hoping to see an exciting result', and I firmly believe that this sort of behavior is in the sociopath corner of the spectrum.)

Please read my other posts about light gun signals, navaid lights during night flying, why window coatings won't work, criticality during night landings, dark adaptation, etc.

It really, really, really, really is a very real issue, and pilots are not just having a good ol' time to get lasers banned.

Please check the sig below this line -- it should be obvious that I am not trying to conspire to limit lasers.

 

[Bluefan]

Should've done a barrel roll.





Just kidding, I absolutely agree.

 

[Benm]

Please read my other posts about light gun signals, navaid lights during night flying, why window coatings won't work, criticality during night landings, dark adaptation, etc.

It really, really, really, really is a very real issue, and pilots are not just having a good ol' time to get lasers banned.

Please check the sig below this line -- it should be obvious that I am not trying to conspire to limit lasers.

Well, if it really IS a serious hazard, i suppose there should be some countermeasure developed.

I think most of the laser hits on planes are dumb kids playing around, not people actually trying to endanger the plane. But what if someone were to use a laser purposely to interfere with air traffic, as an act of outright terrorism? If it were actually that dangerous, would it be feasible for a terrorist to buy a $1000-ish laser with good specs, and use that against a plane on a difficult (weather, night) landing or take-off?

On landing you may be able to do a go around and divert, but on take off this would mean that the pilot would have to fly blind and continue if the laser is switched on slightly before or even after the plane is airborne.

Personally i think it cannot be that dangerous, otherwise it would have been succesfully attempted at some point... probably in areas where conflict, civil wars and such are more common.

 

[Bobby]

Personally i think it cannot be that dangerous, otherwise it would have been succesfully attempted at some point... probably in areas where conflict, civil wars and such are more common.

How many people here are guilty of driving too far/too long and falling asleep at the wheel? Just a little doze, then you jerk awake. Sometimes, the noisy-crimps on the lane-edge wake you. I have. I've never crashed. I know dozens of people who have and never crashed. Sure, there have been crashes (I know one who total'd his '57 Plymouth). But not that often, right?

Therefore, driving with your eyes closed cannot be that dangerous, right? After all, the incidence-to-crash rate is pretty low.

 

[Krogith]

Well, if it really IS a serious hazard, i suppose there should be some countermeasure developed.

I think most of the laser hits on planes are dumb kids playing around, not people actually trying to endanger the plane. But what if someone were to use a laser purposely to interfere with air traffic, as an act of outright terrorism? If it were actually that dangerous, would it be feasible for a terrorist to buy a $1000-ish laser with good specs, and use that against a plane on a difficult (weather, night) landing or take-off?

On landing you may be able to do a go around and divert, but on take off this would mean that the pilot would have to fly blind and continue if the laser is switched on slightly before or even after the plane is airborne.

Personally i think it cannot be that dangerous, otherwise it would have been succesfully attempted at some point... probably in areas where conflict, civil wars and such are more common.

People Could car bomb every Day in the US (you would think if they hate the us as much as they say they do we would at least see some....) but you only see that over seas , so how does your "Attempted at some point" theory work on that?


You Can't use that logic as Bobby pointed out. It may not have planes falling from the sky but it will get valid attention and we will suffer from it. We have a lot of things that aren't that dangerous that some idiot has made illegal.

And aryntha I have agreed with you the whole time, well said.

Unless we start gathering together and getting our legal rights set up and start banning together we can't complain when they out right start :banned: banning things. In our un-educated media informed world we live in, it can happen.

EDIT:

Please stop being so stereotypical....I happen to be 12:cryyy:. It doesn't matter if someone is 12 or 52, if they are an idiot, or just don't have a good comprehension of laser safety, it can cause a problem.

I didn't mean all 12 year olds are idiots sorry. I didn't mean it like that.

But a kid is a kid for a reason. Yes there are mature 12 year olds. But your still a kid and only have 12 years under your belt in experience. Thats why you can't do certain things until your older. I'm not saying Your stupid or something (because there are a lot of very Bright kids) your just in-experienced and still growing thats all. I'm not trying to offend you, it's just your young still is all. and thats true.

And you make a good point on people who are "True Idiots", They grow up into a bigger one as well

 

[Bobby]

Please stop being so stereotypical....I happen to be 12:cryyy:. It doesn't matter if someone is 12 or 52, if they are an idiot, or just don't have a good comprehension of laser safety, it can cause a problem.

Tikilaser: you posted that at 10:48am local to your timezone ... are you home-schooled or just home sick?

Not trying to single you out; we homeschool our daughters, and that personalized education does tend to lead them to be more rational and forward-thinking than the average kid (12, 14, 16, whatever). Both of my daughters know not to point lasers at anything that is not a known backstop, which definitely includes airplanes. They also only user lasers under my supervision, by their own choice.

You are articulate and rational in your writing; clearly you are not the average 12 year old.

 

[Krogith]

@Krogith If a 52 year old picked up a laser he wouldn't have much experience, and if you mean common sense you said it yourself...It totally depends on the person...Just please dont stereotype, its unfair and just rude in general.

EDIT: @bobby, I'm sick, not home schooled. I go to a private school an hour from where I live. The school is one of the most personalized schools I know of.

You can comprehend that a 12 year old is in-experienced in life and has a lot to learn. That is a fact no matter who the 12 year old is my friend.



EDIT: if a 52 year old man picked up a laser for the 1st time and a 12 year old the same, who would do dumber things with it? And if both are idiots god help us.

 

[Krogith]

I have to agree with you there, but life experience does not necessarily translate into intelligent actions.

Honestly I think your a smart kid I didn't mean to offend you if I did.

 

[Bobby]

EDIT: @bobby, I'm sick, not home schooled. I go to a private school an hour from where I live. The school is one of the most personalized schools I know of. FYI it's not 10:48, it was 12:09.

12:09, hmm ... the post shows 8:48 PT as its post-time, and your loc shows Michigan ...

 

[Bobby]

I am confused now, but EST is -5:00 and PT is -8:00 (I think?). I know for a fact that my post was at 12:09 EST, but if you thought I was in the Upper Peninsula then you would be about correct because the UP is central time. Mabye about 20 min off even then though... :thinking:.

Yeah, assumptions are bad Oh, and off-topic ... I should probably delete these :thinking:

 

[Shadetree Engineer]

Shadetree,

Just an aside: The "The windows are on the top, how can a laser get into them from underneath" is one of the recurring "blue-in-the-face" comments that comes up every time this subject is broached on these forums.

I get exhasperated re-telling it. (In a month or so there will be another such thread, where someone will say 'but the cockpit windows are on the top!" I guarantee this.) -- But it's pretty simple.

When we're in the cockpit, we have to see the ground, as we have to navigate and land. We do not just see "from the horizon up". This would make flying impossible. In reality, only a 20-25 degree "shadow" of ground is obscured from our vision in the cockpit.

The only way the oft-broadcasted "But the windows are on the TOP!" premise would work, is if you were directly under the aircraft and shining the laser straight up.

And even if that was the case, it would not be several seconds later, and the plane would be at a vulnerable angle.

I'm a pilot, and I've been illuminated; specifically over the CU Denver Auraria Campus.

I have known several people whose first remarks upon discovering powerful handheld lasers was simply, "I bet I could hit a plane with this thing!" -- It is not uncommon. I don't think it's malicious. I think they simply don't think it through. To them, a plane is a "far away object", and they want to "see how far the laser goes". I don't think it goes much further than that.

I mean, I meet people who actually think that ATC controls the movement of the plane. It' s an unknown to most, and i think that the reason that illumination incidents are increasing is simply because lasers are cheaper and more available, and a plane is generally the "furthest thing away someone can try to hit".

(It does however get a bit more pernicious, I think, when most of the hits take place at airports right during landing and takeoff. That's someone 'hoping to see an exciting result', and I firmly believe that this sort of behavior is in the sociopath corner of the spectrum.)

Please read my other posts about light gun signals, navaid lights during night flying, why window coatings won't work, criticality during night landings, dark adaptation, etc.

It really, really, really, really is a very real issue, and pilots are not just having a good ol' time to get lasers banned.

Please check the sig below this line -- it should be obvious that I am not trying to conspire to limit lasers.

No worries, I've completely reversed my opinion on the window placement issue. All it took was some live video from the co-pilots seat and a little thought.

 

[Shadetree Engineer]

Well, if it really IS a serious hazard, i suppose there should be some countermeasure developed.

I think most of the laser hits on planes are dumb kids playing around, not people actually trying to endanger the plane. But what if someone were to use a laser purposely to interfere with air traffic, as an act of outright terrorism? If it were actually that dangerous, would it be feasible for a terrorist to buy a $1000-ish laser with good specs, and use that against a plane on a difficult (weather, night) landing or take-off?

On landing you may be able to do a go around and divert, but on take off this would mean that the pilot would have to fly blind and continue if the laser is switched on slightly before or even after the plane is airborne.

Personally i think it cannot be that dangerous, otherwise it would have been succesfully attempted at some point... probably in areas where conflict, civil wars and such are more common.

Except for that I'm starting to see this as a real danger, I was thinking the same thing. But in a third-world setting, it seems a bit complicated and ineffectual when an RPG or heat-seeking missile is already available in third-world markets with more 'bang for your buck'. Plus the laser is a beacon that shows where you are standing in a situation where you can expect live munitions to be fired at you.

I think we have only just arrived at the point where a handful of thoughtless criminals may be asking themselves just that sort of question. It's a dumb idea, but so's shooting a rifle out of the back of a car into a shopping mall.

Some kind of counter-measure is called for. Even if it means android pigeons that are programmed to dive bomb into laser beams and track a suspect until their police handlers can show up.

 

[Benm]

I was thinking third world scenarios, or the conflict in the middle east. Would it, for example, be possible to endanger aircraft landing or departing from Ben Gurion for nearby palestine territories? In a context like that the argument of law enforcement being effective will likely fail, and neither will the neighbours be ratting the offender out.

As far as bang for the buck goes: A laser can be used multiple times, which is a clear benefit. Also, they are not all -that- expensive. Even for $200 you can get yourself a decently powered green with acceptable beam specs. In such countries that compares to the street price of a machine gun. An anti-aircraft missle like an SA-7 would be much more expensive, and work only once (though its chances of downing the aircraft are good).

Practical examples of terrorists shooting down airliners are limited as it is... in 2003 they shot down a DHL A399 cargoliner using a SA-14 that took off from Baghdad, and it micraculously managed to land with all crew alive - despite lacking one of the left engines and most of the left wing surface.

This is a particularly expensive weapon though, and if a 200 mW pointer had a 1 in a million chance of downing a plane, using those would be more cost effective.