FAA: Laser incidents soar, threaten planes

[aryntha]

The issue isn't "will it down the plane in a giant fireball" though. It's an issue of interference and endangerment.

Terrorists yes are going to want to 'get the job done', no, they're not going to use laser pointers -- but that doesn't really disprove that pointing lasers at aircraft isn't dangerous or isn't a problem.

Terrorists don't want to distract, flash blind, disorient or confuse pilots, they want to blow the plane to bits. Doesn't mean that distraction, flash blindness or disorientation isn't very dangerous to air travel.

 

[Shadetree Engineer]

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.

Perhaps, it's just too soon to wonder why there haven't been any lasers being fielded by terrorists.

Currently the natives are being introduced to lasers via our foot soldiers tactic of giving a warning at checkpoints by beaming a fairly high-power green into the eyes of anyone who fails to stop immediately. Our troops report this as being very successful at preventing unnecessary shots fired, so this tactic is becoming widely adopted.

It's simple, we are teaching the natives to shoot people in the eye with a hand-held laser. They are rapidly learning about what kind of dis-orientation may result, it's only a matter of time before they start to turn that around and use it against us.

I've heard rumors that our troops want even higher power lasers for non-lethal applications. That will rapidly introduce the idea to the natives that the highest power they can obtain is what they should use.

I've seen various footage from european news, such as those Italian riots a while back where the police were being targeted with high-power green lasers from the crowd. I'm sure the terrorists have seen this too and took note.

It won't take much to think of using several lasers from different locations to harass aircraft, maybe while also shooting missiles.

But all this is a military question, and I don't think it applies to how the domestic scene here should be dealt with. After all, we can't have Warthogs idling around the skies of LAX waiting to hail depleted uranium on any laser sources!

 

[Benm]

The issue isn't "will it down the plane in a giant fireball" though. It's an issue of interference and endangerment.

Terrorists yes are going to want to 'get the job done', no, they're not going to use laser pointers -- but that doesn't really disprove that pointing lasers at aircraft isn't dangerous or isn't a problem.

Terrorists don't want to distract, flash blind, disorient or confuse pilots, they want to blow the plane to bits. Doesn't mean that distraction, flash blindness or disorientation isn't very dangerous to air travel.

Terrorism is about getting a job done, indeed... and doing so in the most cost effective method available with little regard for your own life, let alone that of innoncent others.

Using a laser to deprive a pilot of his visual senses fits that bill exactly. A terrorist would juse a $200 'tool' to endanger a $100 million aircraft. That downing might be due to pilot distraction alone, but as long as it crashes, it would be considered a success.

The first thing people need to understand about terrorism is efficiency. If you use a $200 laser to target $100 million aircraft, it is considered extremely effective if it works only 1 in each 1000 attempts. Provided it would eat some batteries too, you could do 1000 attempts for $300, causing on average one enemy loss worth $100 million.

People tend to underestimate the efficiency of terrorism really. If a terrrorist fires a $200 qassam missile that is intercept by a $1 million patriot missile defence round, that amounts to a win of $999.800 for every shot fired. Obviously no target would be hit, but firing a thoiusand of such missiles would cost the enemy a billion, at an investment of only $200k... which makes the tactic worthwhile in the long run.

All in all, this convices me that if laser pointers were effective in crashing only 1 in 50.000 planes, terrorists would opt to use them - since that amounts to a profit.

 

[Krogith]

Now in Tron legacy he uses a Laser to burn a security camera Image sensor and it only disrupts the image for a few seconds. If you shot a high powered laser into a video camera wont it fry the sensor for a lot longer possibly frying it for good?

 

[Benm]

Results on that may vary. You could be fairly sure to fry several pixels in the camera, but rendering all of them useless is anohter matter.

Then again, just putting a garbage bag over that camera would be 100% effective at a cost of $0.10 or so... pick your logical approach

 

[aryntha]

All in all, this convices me that if laser pointers were effective in crashing only 1 in 50.000 planes, terrorists would opt to use them - since that amounts to a profit.

This line of reasoning still doesn't really convince me that it's "not dangerous" or "isn't a problem", though?

I mean, really -- I got illuminated while PIC over Denver. It was a problem... "Terrorists don't use them", IMO, doesn't really amount to "proof of safety".

 

[ZapU]

I'm confused at what power level causes blindness. According to the article about the ZM-87:
"Power output: 15 mW, 5 pulses per second, at two wavelengths."

15 mW?! Blinding distance of almost 2 miles! How can that be? If that's all it takes, there should be a lot of blind people from all the "5mW+" laser pens floating around.

From Wicked's Arctic specs:
NOHD
The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (NOHD) is the distance that a laser beam does not cause immediate or long term damage to a person. Calculated based on a 0.25 second accidental (unaided eye) exposure.

For the Arctic (about 750-800 mW), that distance is 149 meters (489 feet for us Yanks). For the 200 mW WL E3 green, that distance is 67 meters.


I can understand the hazard of distraction or temporary loss of night vision, but how is someone with a typical handheld laser pointer going to blind (or even injure the eyes of) a pilot? The distance and divergence seems to rule it out, much less the question as to how you will keep the laser targeted on the pilots eyes in a moving aircraft at nearly any altitude.

 

[aryntha]

"Permanent blinding" isn't the issue.

This thread has once again settled into repeated explanations and justifications as to why it's not a big deal. I assure you, as did LSRFAQ, that this is not a big conspiracy. If it wasn't a problem, it wouldn't be a problem. Really.

I know it may not feel like it, but the justification posts are not doing anyone any favors.

Seriously, what do you hope is going to come from this? The FAA saying "Oh, hey, we were wrong -- 15mW is fine, go at it, guys."?

The terminal concensus seems to be, whenever this comes up, "continue trying to prove that aircraft illumination by lasers not a big deal."

But, you know, there's going to be some idiot who peruses this thread quickly and comes out of it by setting out on a saturday night and telling his friends, "Oh, shining lasers at planes isn't a big deal, I read on the internet that its like.. impossible to hit them." - and on he'll go, pointing into the sky.

Government regulators; FDA/FAA/CDRH folks will read these posts (and yes, they DO) and take it to mean that a good portion of hobbyists here are "pro" plane illumination, especially when they RATM about it being some kind of conspiracy or phantom issue made real.

The media, worst of all, can and would and perhaps will characterize "internet forums where laser enthusiasts talk" as a place where "people seem to justify the act of pointing at planes". The spin won't be good.

So once again I have to implore that people stop trying to justify it away. It is a big problem. It's getting to be a bigger problem, especially with 445. And that has to be accepted and we as a community have to tell people to not do it. Without exception. Every time. Or regulators will make SURE nobody does - or at least make it as hard as possible to not do so.


And if something ever DOES happen, nobody's going to care about the person who said it never could, based on "windows on top / shaky hands / they should make a coating / divergence " etc. They'll just care that A) it happened and B) people in the most public face of our community didn't try real hard to prevent it, they just tried to say it wasn't that big of a deal.

The net of this is that it'll accelerate an impending ban, not keep it at bay.

 

[Coherent Light]

This should be a non issue here....Don't Do It...Don't Condone It...Don't Argue semantics...Period...End of Story..

 

[Benm]

This line of reasoning still doesn't really convince me that it's "not dangerous" or "isn't a problem", though?

I mean, really -- I got illuminated while PIC over Denver. It was a problem... "Terrorists don't use them", IMO, doesn't really amount to "proof of safety".

It is no guarantee indeed - i was just curious about why lasers arent used by terrorists against planes if they pose such a huge danger. I'm certainly not denying there is -some- danger, but it seems to be very difficult to find out how much.

The aviation industry is usually very serious about safety, and they test failure modes of all components (and crew). This also involves risk analysis, and can aswer questions about what risk is present in what scenario.

If you were to ask the FAA: "what is the chance of a fully loaded 747 crashing when a goose flies into the #3 engine at an altitude of 1000 feet at take-off", the industry would be able to give you an estimate... combining engine testing results, 3-engine flight results, and landing with excess weight and/or dumping fuel.

If you ask what the chances are using a laser at a specific power, wavelength, distance and divergence, the answer is just "dangerous" without any quantification whatsoever. Therefor i think this must be researched.

 

[Bobby]

Look, I think there is a lot to talk about here. Forum members -rep people for just talking about it -- that is stupid. Another says don't argue semantics. Yet another says there is no conspiracy, but then goes on to say that anything we say here will be twisted against the hobby. However, people have questions, and this group is the best group to answer them. Don't tell them the standard parental "I said no, end of discussion."

Let's be clear on intent here. We don't condone the use of lasers on ANYONE, especially on aircraft. We don't encourage it. We don't suggest it is a "not bad" idea.

What we are doing in this and the other thread is asking what the truth is, and that that truth be what is said. Any time you base an argument on false facts, there will be people who misuse the false facts to justify their dumb actions.

Fine -- like I said before, don't justify it with numbers, you tell it like it is -- ANY external light is going to distract or hurt night vision, etc. Does not matter if it is my 15Mcandlepower spotlight or your 5mW laser. The FAA says 5mW is indistinguishable from other land-lights at 11,700' -- I still would not point a laser at a plane at 12,000+ feet, but someone will use the FAA's own statement as their justification. Guess what? Like some said elsewhere, it is still illegal since the law does not note the distance of the plane -- pointing at that plan is a felony whether it is 5' away or 5 lightyears away. DON'T DO IT.

However, don't sit there and show me a video claiming the spot of a <5mW laser at 11,700' is brighter than the recorded & proven spot of a 1,000mW at 9,000' shown in the YouTube video.

I don't believe the FAA will ever allow corrections of its power allowances to be posted -- it is not in their best interest to allow any laser light to paint planes (an interest I agree with since I do fly from time to time), so they post extremely high requirements. That is not the same as showing that the visual of that light would be not what it is.

Telling people that "you just can't talk about it, that in itself is wrong" is not going to solve anything. Your detractors will still twist facts, and the curious will still ask questions. DON"T BE AFRAID OF QUESTIONS. Answer them logically.

For example, NOHD is the distance ANSI Z136.1 uses to discuss eye damage -- it has nothing to do with distraction or even detection. NOHD would be the same for IR lasers as it is a function of power and divergence. Answer the person's question with that. DOES NOT APPLY TO PILOT IMPACT. Simple, factual, end of story.

 

[Bobby]

Now that is an explanation I can get behind.

 

[Benm]

I still would not point a laser at a plane at 12,000+ feet, but someone will use the FAA's own statement as their justification. Guess what? Like some said elsewhere, it is still illegal since the law does not note the distance of the plane -- pointing at that plan is a felony whether it is 5' away or 5 lightyears away. DON'T DO IT.

I'd surely recommend against lasering airplanes, especially when it is illegal (not everyone on this forum lives in the US). But there should be a reason for something to be illegal (this is the basic principle for legislation), and that reason would in this case be endangerment.

The odd thing is that endangering an aircraft is already a crime, the law does not have to list every possible method to do so. In fact, it does not have to list any at all.

I know that this forum is pretty US centric, but shining a laser at an aircraft is not illegal everywhere. There was a recent case in the netherlands of a man that was annoying awacs plains with a laser, who was absolved of comitting any crime (source: FOK.nl / Nieuws / Vrijspraak voor beschijnen Awacs met laser / FOK!frontpage - in dutch). In this case the power and other specifications where for some reason not known, but it states it was a homebrew device. The judge argued that it could not be proven that there was any actual danger.

What we are doing in this and the other thread is asking what the truth is, and that that truth be what is said.

That is the only reason i participate in these discussions... I want to know the facts. Clear numbers on chances of causing a crash are important: If they show it is actually dangerous to shine a laser at an airplane, i hope that will help convince people not to do so.

Just making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, as long as they think its actually not that bad. Think about things like speeding, not wearing seatbelts, running stop signs or red lights... people do it all the time. And yes, taking a pen from your office home is also a felony, so you do it too

 

[LSRFAQ]

Drop it.

I'm not going to work the math examples for you. I'm not going to link the news reports of past incidents where things worse then flashing have happened.

I'm not giving the media another story, the government another excuse, or the bad guys ideas. I've lost too many rights in the past five years. Most of them due to paranoia by the uneducated media getting blown out of proportion in the name of making "ratings" for advertising money.

There is a new law coming onto the books regarding pointers in airspace. Its quite tolerant, in that it is not a total ban. Let some folks get made examples of, so education can happen. Just do not let it be you who gets five years of education. Its probably a last chance for one more freedom. Let it do its job of education the hard way.

Google " state / regional data fusion center" and decide if you want to continue down this path of inquiry. Folks get paid quite a lot to surf the net, and probably bonuses for every person they "fuse" into the data bank.

Let me temper this a bit,

Lots of "cookbook" "how tos" appear on the internet, (kip*kay for example) but I'm not so sure that the needed discretion, background theory, and the moral compass is always transmitted with the "how to" data.

In short, do your own careful backyard analysis if you want to know for sure, but you'll have to be the detection device. Ouch,if your wrong on your sums or powers of ten, or do not have a good miliiwatt meter, the laser jumps up in power, or the last guy who edited the WIKI slipped a zero some place, or faked a equation. In other words, once you do it, you might have a idea that one needs to be really, really responsible when one does things like this.

That means, if you want to know for sure, you really, really, need to go to school and learn the math, does it not?


Steve

 

[Bobby]

I don't think he is asking for the purpsoe of testing your numbers (I sure hope not). I think he is asking a known knowledgeable person (a group he considers 'experts') an honest question. Of course he can go get a Phd in optics and generate his own expert opinion -- any of us could do that, and it is really not the point and not-so-subtle misdirection. By the same token, he could go ask an Optics professor, or do more Googling of his own. The fact is, he went to the source he trusted to give him the start of an answer.

It is really sad when an informed and intelligent society that supposedly values "free speech" is so concerned with CYA from DHS data collection that they cannot give an open and honest answer to a straight question.

I guess that'll be my last post on this topic, so you win this one. :cryyy:

 

[Krogith]

:tinfoil: