Lasers in Airspace, A view from the other side.

[BEAMANN]

At least the wide beam is something you could likely build.
Look here for inspiration.

Right on Toke, I see it's for a range 750-808nm so I don't see it working 445,473,532,640nm but for the price, It's a goodie! I add it to my favorits
Thanks!

 

[Kevlar]

@BEAMANN. I want to thank you for sharing that PDF with the cockpit view pic. I've heard pilots describe what happens from inside the cockpit when hit by bright light or a laser beam but the picture in that PDF really helped me picture it.

I've always liked it to driving on a dark road on a moonless night, your pupils are dilated and have great night vision, then BAMM, a car comes around the road with its high beams on. Ouch, instant headache and there goes the night vision.

So I doubt everyone will check that PDF out and I thought everyone should see that picture so I'm posting it here:

 

[BEAMANN]

@BEAMANN. I want to thank you for sharing that PDF with the cockpit view pic. I've heard pilots describe what happens from inside the cockpit when hit by bright light or a laser beam but the picture in that PDF really helped me picture it.

I've always liked it to driving on a dark road on a moonless night, your pupils are dilated and have great night vision, then BAMM, a car comes around the road with its high beams on. Ouch, instant headache and there goes the night vision.

So I doubt everyone will check that PDF out and I thought everyone should see that picture so I'm posting it here:

@Kevlar, thanks you for helping me promote the truth and to educate those in Ignorance.
This foto only shows about 1/5 of the problems that happen, and if the pilot happens to be using night vision gogggles it's by far worse.

 

[flecom]

while I still agree that pointing a laserpointer at an aircraft is incredibly stupid and people who do it should be publicly caned... lets think about this one for a second...

how many planes have crashed due to laser pointers?

how many planes have crashed due to pilot error?

 

[aryntha]

lets think about this one for a second...

how many planes have crashed due to laser pointers?

how many planes have crashed due to pilot error?

And what's your point with that statement?

 

[ElektroFreak]

I would imagine that his point is that pilots are more of an air safety risk than laser pointers.. I would agree. Given that fact, however, I would also think that anything that could increase this already significant risk, such as the distraction provided by bright lights on a pilot's dark-adjusted eyes, should be eliminated whenever possible.

 

[Trevor]

And what's your point with that statement?

I believe he wants to outlaw pilot error. It's a problem, so make it illegal!

-Trevor

 

[Benm]

Thats an interesting black and white picture. I suppose all pilots are completely colorblind, so it is representative of the real situation. Also, extending one hand such that it its in the way of the laser but not in the way of the instruments or 99% of the view through the cockpit windows is not an option either.

Lets be a bitr real here: say you were driving down a highway, and some twit pointed a laser in your face from an overpass... what would you do? Put up one hand to obscure the laser and drive on, or not do so and crash into whatever object is nearest to you?

 

[flecom]

And what's your point with that statement?

I'm more worried about the dude in the front having a bad day/being disgruntled/overworked/under slept or just plain forgetting WTF that little blinking light means vs someone shining a laser pointer and annoying said future postal employee lol

I believe he wants to outlaw pilot error. It's a problem, so make it illegal

-Trevor

perfect solution right here! :na:

 

[Trevor]

Put up one hand to obscure the laser and drive on, or not do so and crash into whatever object is nearest to you?

Let's be fair, crashing into something is the quickest way to stop.

-Trevor

 

[aryntha]

Lets be a bitr real here: say you were driving down a highway, and some twit pointed a laser in your face from an overpass... what would you do? Put up one hand to obscure the laser and drive on, or not do so and crash into whatever object is nearest to you?

On landing you have to manage pitch, airspeed (critical), sink rate, centerline alignment, altitude points, throttle, gear, flaps. Listen to radio calls and watch for traffic on final, check TCAS, do your checklist, prepare for a goaround... it's a lot more complex than a highway cruise.

I've never landed one-handed. And I wouldn't want to.

At night, your instruments are usually REALLY dimmed, and you're a good 2-hours dark adapted at least. One flash of light can ruin that, and if it's on landing, that may mean landing too low or too high.

I guess what's bothering me here is the tendency for this to slip into the realm of "lasers directed at a plane are not a big deal, the pilots are just whiners." And the idea that it's not a valid complaint *until* something catastrophic happens.

That is not the case, I can assure you. PPRuNe is not the best example. LSRFAQ was just trying to relate the frequency of occurances; he wasn't vouching for the climate and proffesionalism of PPRuNe.

I think it goes without saying that I don't want lasers to be outlawed. But the proper response to that is, "-- because there are a lot of responsible laser enthusiasts who would be harmed, without cause or through any fault of their own, by a ban", not "-- because the pilots are making too big of a deal out of it and should just hold their hand up / look away / they probaly suck at flying anyways".

That's *not* going to gain traction with the public or law enforecment, and as I said earlier, though it may "feel good" to say things like that, it hurts the cause. Other people are reading these forums. Anyone can. Links get passed around, and people who may have been previously sympathetic may change their mind.

Everyone seems to have an answer that involves pilots defending themselves from this stuff mid-flight, (once we get past the talk of 'window coatings', etc) - and I don't think that's right. Understand that it's a bigger deal to the "target" than it is to the person on the ground holding the laser.

If someone pointed a laser at a car on a highway, and said car got in an accident, I wouldn't think that criticism of the driver would or should come into play. The laser should have never been pointed at the car in the first place --- period.

There's no excuse for pointing a high powered laser at another *person*, be they in a car, airplane, forklift, dirigible, submarine, or whatever. The person's defense skill and readiness shouldn't be part of the conversation.

Just don't point lasers at people.

Regardless of what container they're in.

YMMV, and I suppose it's just one opinion; and i'll probably try to stay out of it going forward.

 

[ElektroFreak]

I haven't seen a single post thus far that would lead me to believe that anyone here believes that this isn't a very real issue. Just because we are discussing other facets involved in this issue doesn't mean that we don't think it's valid, in fact it's very much valid. On the surface it is as simple as "just don't point a laser at another living thing".

When discussing the pros and cons of something that affects all of us, where you get your info matters a lot. If users of PPRuNe are commonly guilty of blowing things out of proportion, then how can they be used as a reliable source of statistics?

We could all just leave the discussion at "just don't point at people", but that doesn't allow for damage control when it does happen.. and it does happen, and will happen again over and over no matter what. That's the nature of these things unfortunately. That's why, to me, it's also important to analyze and discuss other parts of the equation. Although for me personally, I wish we had a different thread with different statistical sources in which to discuss this topic.

 

[aryntha]

I think a valid analysis on -what makes people do it-, or *decide* to do it, would likely be be beneficial.

I don't understand what people are thinking when they point a laser at an aircraft. Do they expect catastrophe? Some response from the plane?

Or are aircraft, in most locales, simply the "furthest thing away to aim at", therefore in essence they're just "testing" their laser to 'see if they can hit something that far away' ?

I don't stick my hand in a running fan to 'see what happens'; -- so I just want to understand the thought process.

Maybe they're not thinking very far at all... But that doesn't stop me from trying to decipher it. If that could be understood, then maybe it could be prevented.

 

[Benm]

@aryntha: you soudl be able to land a plane with only one hand. Aviation secury would suggest it should be doable but advised against. The general idea is that a single pilot should be albe to land the aircraft, in hte unlikely event that one of the flightcrew would perish en route AND the remaining aviator would be injured,

Using one hand to obscure the laser would be a preferable action if you are flying solo or for some reason with an incpacitaded co-pikot. I doubt scuh landings would be picture perfect, but feasible nevertheless.

I think we must be realistic here - afaik no com air crat has ever experienced serious problems from laser irratdation... not even to a degree that would justify a go around. If any laser would impede landng to a point where it would justrify a go around, there would bea ample time to locate and disable the laser source.

Surely aviation is also about consindering multiple system failure, inculiding pilot error. I dont see any scenario where a laser would be the single cause of error causing a crash... but it might be a contributing factor, so pointing lasers at aircraft is still a bad idea.

 

[Trevor]

@aryntha: you soudl be able to land a plane with only one hand. Aviation secury would suggest it should be doable but advised against. The general idea is that a single pilot should be albe to land the aircraft, in hte unlikely event that one of the flightcrew would perish en route AND the remaining aviator would be injured,

Using one hand to obscure the laser would be a preferable action if you are flying solo or for some reason with an incpacitaded co-pikot. I doubt scuh landings would be picture perfect, but feasible nevertheless.

I think we must be realistic here - afaik no com air crat has ever experienced serious problems from laser irratdation... not even to a degree that would justify a go around. If any laser would impede landng to a point where it would justrify a go around, there would bea ample time to locate and disable the laser source.

Surely aviation is also about consindering multiple system failure, inculiding pilot error. I dont see any scenario where a laser would be the single cause of error causing a crash... but it might be a contributing factor, so pointing lasers at aircraft is still a bad idea.

One of the flaws I remember with the "just cover it up" theory is that aircraft windshields are polarized such that it scatters the laser light all over the place and completely lights the cockpit. I read that on here, but I'm not sure where.

Based on the idea that the instruments are already dim, just having the cockpit lit like that may impair vision enough to not be able to see the instruments.

-Trevor

 

[flecom]

@aryntha: you soudl be able to land a plane with only one hand. Aviation secury would suggest it should be doable but advised against. The general idea is that a single pilot should be albe to land the aircraft, in hte unlikely event that one of the flightcrew would perish en route AND the remaining aviator would be injured,.

cant you just put the heading and altitude into the auto pilot, and when ready to land hit the approach button?