More idiots pointing at planes...

[TeufelWolf]

Banning lasers would be a long term project. Consider how long it took the govt to set-up a system to control the sale of meth making chemicals. Like meth, lasers are made from diverted legal products.

In order to ban lasers the govt needs to control the precursors, which could be done with a modification of "ewaste" laws, but that would take a few years of lobbying against the retail industry.

Import controls just don't work in the US because we as a nation buy so much stuff globally. The FDA can barely protect us from the Chinese selling us poisoned food.

 

[aryntha]

I just feel like i should mention that is is next to impossible to actually hit a pilot in the eye with a laser.

Just think about it. You on the ground and plane way up above you. The cockpit window is on the top of the plane not the bottom.

This is one of the most oft pulled-out "counters" to the seriousness of the 'aircraft illumination' problem.

I've had to comment on it several times in this forum already.

1) The windows being "on top" does does not mean pilots can't see the ground. We have to land. I assure you, we can see a LOT of ground. Most of it, in fact, except for maybe 20' to either side from the center of the cockpit.

2) "A direct hit in the eye" is not all of the issue, or even most of the issue. Loss of night adaptation when landing is. (You have no idea how low we have our internal instruments turned at night during landing.) Distraction when landing is. And mistaking a laser for a light gun signal by the tower is.

http://laserpointerforums.com/f53/lasers-airspace-view-other-side-56013.html#post791063

1. I get tired of people telling me its impossible for a pointer to track/illuminate a plane. Ye old mark one mod zero human brain and hand is one of the best tracking systems that can be produced by unskilled labor.

...but it concerns me whenever there's a discussion open to the public where laser enthusiasts post things like, "They're totally making it up, pics or it didn't happen" / "Well the pilots should just look away" / "The windows are on the top, how can you hit it from the bottom lol" etc ... They may 'feel good' to say but they're not helping anyone's cause.

And an earlier post I made on it, with pictures.

http://laserpointerforums.com/f53/lasers-airspace-view-other-side-56013.html#post791063

Since that thread, I *have* been tracked by a handheld 532, and I did have to look away and rely on internal navaids (basically, 'go IFR') while it happened.

Sorry to point to old threads, but it seems that the same items come up every time this is brought up.

It is a problem. You can hit the plane. It can hit the pilot. It does cause issues.

 

[Flaminpyro]

Thank you Aryntha for saying it all again we do need someone like you who
understands both sides of the issue to be here and help us understsnd so
please have paitence with us and keep telling it like it is

 

[aryntha]

Thank you Aryntha for saying it all again we do need someone like you who
understands both sides of the issue to be here and help us understsnd so
please have paitence with us and keep telling it like it is

It's cool, Pyro. Thanks. I just want everyone to understand that aviation and laser enthusiasts aren't some kind of opposing forces... if that were the case I'd be very conflicted.

I've been reading some of the threads recently where some real advocacy may be taking shape (the threads with LSRFAQ and ElectroFreak) - It was this kind of 'chaos' between commercial and hobbyist radio (admittedly, without potential lives on the line) that caused the FCC to be formed back in the 1920s which eventually lead to yes, regulation of the airwaves, but also amateur radio which is certainly legitimized and to a degree, protected.

(I know that folks say not nearly as many 'useful' products have come out of the amateur laser scene compared to amateur radio, however, the hobby is much younger, and I do believe the potential exists for amateur 'technologists' of any sort to cause benefit in the long run.)

We have to shape the debate or we're going to have it thrust upon us. And to shape it right we have to really prioritize safety how seriously we take the interaction between laser enthusiasts and aviation. (Take a look at a serious firearm enthusiast forum sometime - they don't tolerate much fooling around.)

I know new folks come in and haven't seen the old threads. To you guys, I just want to say - I hope we go down the wrong path with the aviation/laser debates... And to those who haven't heard me say it before - I don't want either of them to be jeopardized. As a pilot, I have a lot on the line, but -- c'mon. Look at my sig. As a laser enthusiast I've got a lot on the line, too.

 

[DJNY]

May I ask you to put all of your laser/plane posts into one thread?

They are worth A LOT, and should get a Sticky for the "Safety & Legal Issues" section!

 

[aryntha]

May I ask you to put all of your laser/plane posts into one thread?

They are worth A LOT, and should get a Sticky for the "Safety & Legal Issues" section!

I wonder if Avery or a mod could "move" them all into one thread or something... Reposting them may not be happy-times with the mods, but I'm certainly willing to do so.

 

[anselm]

.... at 30,000-40,000 feet, while out star pointing? Or is the beam divergence so great at that point that it doesn't matter?

That's one reason planes are safe when up there on cruising altitude.
The other reason is you could only really hit the belly of the fuselage, and
not the cockpit window in that situation.


Oh and Hello and welcome to the LPF!
Read the stickies, be safe!

 

[TeufelWolf]

@PNJ

Doubtful they would even notice - a cruising airliner is going about 500 MPH. It would pass thru the beam in microsecs unless you where deliberately tracking it.

Most airliners land/take off at around 180 mph, which is pretty easy for the human eye to track, and they are BIG targets.

Cruising they are 4-5 miles up, and moving at 500 mph, and the cockpit is very tiny area.

 

[thunderlaser]

its so stupid to point your laser at a plane. so many lives are put on the line and even though most times the pilot can withstand it, it still CAN cause the plane to crash.

I hope the kids who are doing this understand that IF a plane were to crash, they then become the murderer of 100+ people in that plane. That is probably life in prison. Lets hope they understand that good enough before a plane actually DOES crash and they DO become the murderer of all those people.

I most certainly wouldn't want to spend my whole life in prison. So, if any kids are reading this forum and you have done this, think about what I said above..

 

[aryntha]

ok. Let's do this *again*.

If you're star pointing, take a few minutes to assess your situation. Yes, it's possible for there to be a plane at 40,000 ft that is hard to see. In such a case, you'd:

• not be tracking the plane,
• not be trying to aim at the portion of the sky that the plane was in, generally.

So people should not be "afraid" of star pointing, but it would make sense to do a cursory observation and check to make sure to avoid any planes that ARE visible, even at that distance.

The problem is much increased with people pointing them at planes during takeoff and landing. However this does not mean that cruise altitude is not a risk.

• Takeoff and landing is the most critical phase of flight.
• The cockpit windows being 'on top' does not mean they cannot be hit. If the pilot can see the ground, where you are, then you can hit them with your laser.
• Yes, your hand can track a plane very well on takeoff and landing, or even at cruise. Divergence actually is an enemy here: the larger the divergence, the easier it is to have continuous 'illumination' of an object like a plane at distance.
• Retinal damage isn't the only issue - it's distraction, loss of dark adaptation, and possibly confusion for light gun signals. Even a moderately startling flash during a short runway landing could be disasterous.

This doesn't mean it's OK to shoot your RPL-700 at a plane up at 30,000ft.

I'll say this until I can't say it anymore: The cockpit windows being 'on top' does not mean that they cannot be hit from the ground. Please understand that when flying a plane, you can see A LOT of the ground from the cockpit. You have to.

Think about it. Your car windows are on the 'top side' of our car, and you can look out of the driver's window and see the road beneath you. For some reason this repetition of "But the windows are on the top, you can't hit them from the ground!" is brought out over and over again.

I guess there's some notion that pilots can only see "from the horizon and sky up" outside of the windows. It simply isn't true, and someone on the ground at a 30' angle from the plane can easily shine alaser at an angle to enter the cockpit window and flood the entire space with light.

Also, even if the plane is moving at 600mph; relative to you, it's only moving at a couple relative "centimeters per second" as far as hand movement goes. If you can point at it with your hand in the sky as it moves, then you can track it with your laser.

I know that what I keep saying is not the 'popular' opinion. It seems like there's a lot of motivation to justify or rationalize this issue away. A lot of "armchair engineering" being employed to try and say "Well, it's not really a big deal." It is a big deal, I assure you, and we as a group need to stop trying to rationalizing it, and start actively discouraging it.

I really try to not get involved in politics in this forum, but this is the one issue I tend to say something about since I've got the perspective from both sides. And this constant din of repeated reasons as to 'why it's not so bad to point your laser at a plane' is going to do nothing but hasten the actions of governments to ban our lasers outright. It's gotta stop. It feels good to say, but it only hurts our situation.

Sorry to get so "passionate" about this, but I'm just trying to keep this on track and keep the concensus realistic.

Don't be afraid of star pointing, but if you need to test your Class IV, use a 'terrain based beam dump', like a cliff face. (Even though, in a lot of areas this would still not be legal, it is, at least, more sensible than waving it around the sky. )