# Pointing Lasers at Aircraft



## little_mp (11 Dec 2004)

Alright, I was reading on CNN.com today as a friend of mine pointed out to me yet again there was another crazy thing on there, typical of the good old US media... it read as follows "WASHINGTON (AP) -- Terrorists may seek to down aircraft by shining powerful lasers into cockpits to blind pilots during landing approaches, U.S. officials warned in a bulletin distributed nationwide." Look for your selves and tell me that someone doesn't find it as ridiculous as me?! 
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/12/09/terrorist.laser.ap/index.html 
Is this not propaganda or what? :threat:
I mean first of all if you were close enough to use a laser, saying that a terrorist could get that close wouldn't they just use an RPG? ??? and further-more aircraft can land themselves, so it wouldn't really matter if they pilots could see or not... they land all the time in bad weather where they can hardly see anyways, and would they be able to blind both the pilots at the same times  
WOW what has the media come to :dontpanic: CNN I salute you 

_- mod edit to clean up/clarify title -_


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2004)

I_A_N

It wasn't that long ago that a Russian vessel transiting the Straits of Juan de Fuca shone a laser into the cockpit of a Helo (I think it was a Canadian SeaKing with an American crew member on board) causing permanent damage to both the Pilots? resulting in at least the Canadian losing flight status, and the American as well IIRC.  The laser was ditched before the vessel tied up in Seattle.

It is not just propaganda.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3748f90e57f6.htm


----------



## little_mp (11 Dec 2004)

Well to me it just sounds ridiculous that these terrorists cells that could be possibly be operating inside the US would bother acquiring such a thing when as i mentioned it would be a lot easier for them, in this instance in airports to get that close to affect an aircraft, preferably Civi to just use an M-72 or RPG to get the desired affect terrorists want. However your statement is legitimate, however I belive in that case it was more of a less leathal force agaisnt the Helo rather than actualy shooting it down. If its not to bold to ask then, why would terrorists want to go to these great lengths, when stereotypically their goal is simple to terrorise Innocent civilians to get their message threw to the governments of the world. To me the threat of terrorists launching rockets at planes seems much more real and "scary or terroristic" to me then the threat of a laser almost like something out of Star Wars.


----------



## G .Dundas (11 Dec 2004)

Yeah but no gets all lit up about what looks a surveying crew carrying the usual gear....on the other hand guys walking around with  rocket launchers tend people upset for some reason.
In short in order to get your target you must first get into range.In short in may be the perfect weapon for a terrorist cell


----------



## little_mp (11 Dec 2004)

Alright if you say so, well if it happens, god forbid, and a Civi airliner was to go down ill be the first to eat me hat  ;D


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Dec 2004)

There was an issue with the edmonton police helicopter being shot at with pen lasers. Its was blinding the pilots......It is a real threat. Not just terrorists- any crazy yahoo can do it.......


----------



## dangerboy (11 Dec 2004)

On a side note in Bosnia, the local kids would aim laser pointers at helicopters setting of the laser warning detectors. We were told to try and stop that which is of course iimpossible.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Dec 2004)

A couple of more cases.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040928-111356-3924r.htm


----------



## Inch (11 Dec 2004)

Laser range finders are another problem. Make sure you think twice before using your laser ranger finder to figure out how far away the helicopter is. There are protective means in place, at least for military helo pilots I know for sure . I'm not going into how we do it since I don't know the classification of that info, so I'll leave it at that. If it starts to be a problem for civvie pilots, there are ways to minimize the risk.

I_A_N, planes don't land themselves. In fact it's very rare that an airport has an auto land capability, only larger airports like Heathrow or O'Hare and to my knowledge we only have one such capable airport in Canada and that's Pearson Int'l. It's called a Cat III ILS, it'll take you right to the ground, but they're very expensive for the airport to maintain. Things like centre line lighting and a whole slew of other requirements have to be met to have a Cat III ILS, not to mention that the aircraft must have the proper equipment on board. They're also training intensive and not a common qualification for most pilots. In most cases you have to have at least a ceiling of 200ft and 1/2 mile visibility in order to shoot an approach to an airport, provided they have an ILS, if they don't, the weather limits are a bit higher, like 400-600 ft and 1-2 miles vis. In any case, if the runway environment is not seen, you can't land, unless you're shooting a Cat III ILS approach.


----------



## RCnapalm (11 Dec 2004)

Though I am only a ground-pounder (and a part-time one at that) I do know some things about attacking a target
whatever you do you want to make sure you eliminate it
with two pilots and your killzone limited to that of the cockpit, laser assault to me personnaly doesnt sound that effective when an RPG-7 or
a high powered rifle like the M82 can probably take a fixed wing-aircraft, never mind a chopper.
This is just a personal opinion as im not certain as to the targeting abilities of a high quality laser, but I think my comments 
certainly make sense when something as unstable as a laser pointer is concerned.


----------



## condor888000 (11 Dec 2004)

Think about it, a laser hits the pilots, permantly or temporarily blinding them on final. They can no longer see. The chance of them landing in nearly zero. Unless, as Inch said, they are in an airport that is Cat III ILS capabile. Even if they are at one of the few that are, they already have to be on that type of approach as odds are they will not be able to switch into CAT III ILS if they are already on final. I my mind, odds are pretty good that they would crash, taking out not only a multi-million dollar aircraft but possibly hundreds of passenger as well as some very expensive airport equipment on the ground.
I know that on my glider pilot's course this past summer, we had a Major from the Directorate of Flight Safety come in and brief us on the problem this represented. When the military starts briefing teenage cadets learning to fly aircraft without engines, I have a feeling that they take this as a very real and serious problem.


----------



## little_mp (11 Dec 2004)

Personally, I still find it far fetch as a Terrorist attack furthermore knowing terrorists, its not likely for them to attack a small remote airport, or a fixed wing Commerical aircraft that doest have that capability, terrorists are after results and they would chose a highprofile large airport like JFK or LAX and they defiantly would have the required capability for the planes to land themselves. Just a thought on how terrorist work i see it as unlikely to attack a small non high profile target  >


----------



## Inch (11 Dec 2004)

Again, let me give you a little insight on flying. Cat III approaches aren't flown on bright sunny days, they're flown when the vis/ceiling is near 0/0 or they're flown for practice. Other than that, they fly the autopilot down to 200ft and then click it off to land the aircraft themselves.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (12 Dec 2004)

Judging by what has been said, and the taking into consideration the advancements in technology, I think that we can all agree that lasers are both an effective and plausible means by which terrorists can further harm.

However, I believe that there is a much larger picture here that Ian is trying to communicate and that many of you fail to see...

The mass media and government affiliated press are doing what they do best: 
Keeping Americans scared. 

Keep your own citizens in a constant state of fear, and the less likely they are to start questioning government policy.

Keep a close eye on what new threats Washington issues next. So long as there are interests in prolonging the war, one can only be certain that new threats with dangerous potential will continue to arise...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2004)

MissMolsonIndy:

You must be aware of the expression "Even Paranoiacs Have Enemies"?


Perhaps the Americans have reason for a degree of concern?  I know a lot of Americans, they are all still going to work, sending their kids to school, planning for retirement...... In fact part of the problem the US armed services have is that the community at large is not fully engaged in this conflict - to much of the population, even those that support it, there is a sense of unreality because it has not and does not intrude on their daily lives.  Even with aircraft flying overhead the Superbowl Games and the Basebally season has gone on as usual.  Their "fear" seems to be held well in check.  

And judging from the debate during the election period I think you would be hard-pressed to find many that were unaware of the civil rights issues and had an opinion.  And a good chunk of those people didn't like some of the directions taken.  Some saw them as necessary evils and some saw them as unnecessary. They had an election with those issues on the table and opted to continue with the necessary evils.

As to the notion that the US media is serving some greater Government policy programme by creating a climate of fear, I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody in the US media that served this Presidents policies.  I am sure the Republicans don't see the media as helping them win over the populace.  

If anything I might agree that the media is scare-mongering but largely to serve a two-pronged agenda.  1, The world is a dangerous place and what are we doing meddling in it.  2, America is now an unsafe place because  George Bush chose not to keep us in "splendid isolation".

I agree that information can raise fears.  On the other hand not supplying information, keeping the population fat, dumb and happy will create a paradise in which terrorists can operate.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (12 Dec 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> The mass media and government affiliated press are doing what they do best:
> Keeping Americans scared.



From a purely commercial perspective, a good dose of fear does mean better ratings.  No one would buy a newspaper or watch a news show if all they had to say was "All is well, you have nothing to worry about."  What entices people to watch is a tagline like "this common household item could KILL your child! see more at eleven."  The government press people know this, and write their press releases to play to that style of marketing.  On the other side of the coin, as a pilot, I am glad to hear about the threat.  While I highly doubt that a terrorist would target the Cessna 172 that I fly (well maybe one who sets low goals), I had never given any thought to the danger of laser rangefinders etc.  I don't think that governments letting people know about these types of things is completely political, it does give people another thing to be vigilant for.  I don't think that's necessarily a negative thing.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

> it does give people another thing to be vigilant for.  I don't think that's necessarily a negative thing.


 yea well at this rate pretty soon i think that people are going to be afraid of their own shadow   
 :fifty:


----------



## Jungle (12 Dec 2004)

I_A_N, you seem to know an awful lot about Terrorists; maybe you could have prevented 9/11 by telling the US govt in advance what they were planning ??
Since you are an expert, despite some pilots here telling you this is a concern, maybe you should contact the CDN and US govts and tell them not to worry, terrorists *WILL NOT* use lasers on airplanes...  :


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> The mass media and government affiliated press are doing what they do best:
> Keeping Americans scared.



I heard Michael Moore say that as well.

The US government cannot seem to win.  They are lambasted for not giving enough warning to the American public prior to Sept 11, and now that they are accused of using things like a colour coded warning system and using the media to serve their own diabolical ends.... :

Be careful not to put yourself into the tin-foil hat club.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

Actually when I live in German and I was in Berlin when September 11th happend I was directly affected as I was Attending a US Government school I also Knew the Director of the FBI for European Affairs, he told me quite abit about these terrorists, and alot of what I am saying about terrorists is stuff that I have heard Directly from him, Before her was in Europe he was in Washington on the Counter Terrorism Unit so I guess he must be wrong as well eh cause he obviously knows alot less than any of you about terrorists, I'm not saying I'm an expert because I'm not but what makes you sure you know then? Personally I have been affected by terrorism a few times in my life, I was in Spain When the Airport i was at was car bombed I was in Rome Easter of 2002 when there was elevated Terrorist warnings with the Carabenari everywhere, and I had to go to school with a Tank in front of it and Armed Men at every entrance and the Secret service going to class with high profile American kids or having to carry a Gas Mask in my school bag instead of a lunch box because of the fear of a chemical attack as just incase you don't know Berlin has more Muslims living in the city then  the Capital of Turkey, and the US government felt that in the Muslim community there could be certain groups unhappy with the Americans and try to harm American Interest in Berlin, but that most likely was true as there were anti American Parades quite often.


----------



## Inch (12 Dec 2004)

I_A_N, something is not clicking for me, according to your profile you're 17, so that means that Sept 11th 2001 you were 14. Something tells me that an FBI director wouldn't be talking to a 14yr old, and if he was, I highly doubt he'd be telling you the kind of stuff you claim.

You seem to have been quite a few places for someone so young. Your profile also says that you're a Reservist in Hamilton, so you must be a Canadian Citizen or a landed immigrant, why were you at a US school in Germany?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2004)

Other then growing up in foreign circles, you've done nothing to prove that you're a Subject Matter Expert on terrorism, laser technology, or piloting an aircraft.   Infact, all your last post confirms is that you are a 17 years old that has trouble maintaining coherence in your posts.

Heed Jungle's advice.


----------



## Bert (12 Dec 2004)

Another thing to consider is the dynamics of the population/audience.   Not everyone is 
knowledgeable about the facts, practicalities, and specifications of lasers or the use
of lasers in this scenario.   The method and style the media presents information
influences the conclusions drawn by the audience.

As an example, the story presented in this thread is a valid scenario to consider. In addition
the US has been attacked by terrorists. Yet, there is much information, facts and
practicalities left out about lasers not to suggest the seriousness of the threat.   The article 
does not say it will happen or not. The reader inserts their own biases and perspectives, 
perhaps out of fear of "what should I do next", and reaches a conclusion.   

Its like presenting a simple fact to an African, "A car may severely rust out in
7 years if it doesn't get it undercoated", and then walk away.   What conclusions is
he going to draw?   How about his neighbor? Tell him later this is a possibility in Canada 
because of salt placed on the roads and the process of rapid oxidization and is not
likely to occur so quickly in Africa.    Perhaps his initial conclusions would not have been 
correct.   Manipulated or not, the general audience is prone to bias, selectivity, and 
concluding from what they read.   This is a fact of life.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

Alright let me clarify it all i am NOT an expert on terrorism, and futhermore I did live in Berlin for 3 years I am Canadian but my Father was on an overseas assigment in Germany and mostly Berlin so  our family lived there for 3 years, and there are 3 diff english schools in Berlin theres JFKS where i went that is a US gov school they have a half german student population to help the americans learn german Im'm not exactly sure however I did go there heres the website of the school http://www.jfks.de/ I'll even scan my year book pic if it makes any of you feel better, secondly my mum is a hair stylest and she would cut all the US diplomats and Canadian Diplomoats Birts and etc,'s hair in a thing she had in our house and at the time when i was in grade 9 I was very Interested by the events at the time and we had a few member of the FBI get their hair down at my house Including  Bill Gohetz or how ever it is spelled and i would sit there and talk with him as he got his hair done and he would tell me stuff about why terrorists did what they did as well my american History class spend quite a while after september 11th as there were member of my school that had relitives who died on september 11th we tlked alot about it as well but im not an expert and dont comment on soemthing you dont know about my living in germany I am also a biritsh ciizen which incase you didnt know makes me an EU citizen so i could live in Germany without being a landed immigrant or anything u just have to register at the local polizei station.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2004)

> Alright let me clarify it all i am NOT an expert



You could have stopped there.  Quit telling those who deal with the subject matter that they're wrong.

Stick to your lane.


----------



## Inch (12 Dec 2004)

I_A_N, regardless of what you were told while the guy was getting his hair cut, I'd still be suspicious of what an FBI agent had to say while sitting in a barber chair talking to a 14 yr old, even the FBI understands OPSEC. 

The point I was trying to make initially is that from a pilot's perspective, a perspective that you lack, lasers *are* a threat to normal operations. Think about when a terrorist on the ground would be able to actually see an aircraft. If it's 200ft overcast, they're not going to see the aircraft in time to point the laser at the cockpit, exactly the time that the autopilot is being used, so it's really a non issue if it's overcast.  Now, if it's sunny out, pilots have to maintain their proficiency at landing and clear sunny days are when they do it. Precisely the time that a terrorist would have plenty of time to see the aircraft and point the laser at it. Do you see where the concern lies?


----------



## AZA-02 (12 Dec 2004)

I'm not an expert in lasers, but in order to reach the cockpit of a landing aircraft, which is landing on airport grounds which is surely closely guarded since 9/11 and that the landing stripe is hundreds of metres away from the barbed wired fence, you would a fairly big laser powered by some sort of vehicle. I would like to see what would happen to the guy that would keep is trunk open towards a landing strip waiting for his prey to come down  ??? My opinion, feel free to say say otherwise.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

Thats what I'm trying to say here ill put it this way so no one can rip it apart my opinion is that its very far fetch and i cant see it happening like i said by the time someone goes to the lengths go get in there and be able to effectively use a laser to blind the pilots, good enough to cause an accident in MY mind they might as well just use some sort of rocket or RPG, and its probably easier to acquire an illegal rocket launcher or RPG than a really really high powerful laser and its also I'm imagining a little more complicated then pressing a button on a laser pointer right? but almost any idiot can use a rocket launcher, I'm sure you've all seen the instructions on the side of an M-72


----------



## AZA-02 (12 Dec 2004)

we understand each other man, terrorist dont use complicated stuff...proof AK-47, RPG-7 AND SA-7 and a pair of sandales


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2004)

From what I understand, and remember from when the incident happened, the laser used on the West Coast guys was hand held. Either a targeting laser or a ranging laser, IIRC. They saw the guy out on the bridge with it. When they boarded the vessel, it had gone overboard and Ivan claimed "nyet". It's not complicated stuff and it created the problem.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2004)

That's my recollection as well Recceguy.


----------



## AZA-02 (12 Dec 2004)

did nt you say the guys were on a russian sub? They had access to military range finders, were talking about terrorist?  ???


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2004)

No.   They were on a Russian freighter that, from the Senate hearings info, was believed to an Intelligence gathering vessel capable of tracking US subs going in and out of Bainbridge.

As to the availability of military equipment ---- I am fairly sure than and RPG-7 and the Strela SAM are both only available through military agencies.  Any stores out your way selling them?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2004)

No, I never said they were on a sub. They were on a trawler, or some sort, shadowing a sub exercise. Also, with various gov'ts selling stuff to terrorists, don't you think they couldn't buy one of those too. If they can get rockets, they can get anything that's for sale. OBL is worth millions, I don't think the price is any object. Perhaps you may want to research the capabilities of these things, we're not talking a classroom pointer you get at the Buck store.


----------



## Inch (12 Dec 2004)

recceguy, you're bang on.

A laser range finder will do the job, and that's just a set of binos. Point and shoot, a monkey could do it. 

The incident with the Sea King went a little something like this, they were identifying a Russian trawler (as described by Kirkhill). They didn't see any thing at the time, took pictures of it and headed for home, the pilots started to complain about burning in their eyes (I don't recall how immediate this was), when the photos were examined, they saw the red dot from one of the windows on the bridge. They then boarded the vessel but after the Cdn Gov't dilly dallying, the laser was gone and no proof other than the pictures was ever found. 

The reason it's such a threat is because it's very discrete, the pilots won't see where the beam came from and even if nothing happens to the airliner in the short term, they've just destroyed 2 multi million dollar pilots that can't be replaced in any less than 2 years. To the average bystander, it's just a dude looking at an airliner with a pair of binos. Good luck catching him, it's a little more discrete than standing on the side of the road with an RPG.

I feel this is a losing discussion even though those of us in the know feel it's a threat, so I digress.


----------



## AZA-02 (12 Dec 2004)

OK ill search on it, oh by the way recceguy can you remove that verbal warning thing under my name, i got the point... thanks


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2004)

I didn't put you there, and your penance isn't up till the 16th. No "get out of jail free" cards here. You should have received a PM as to the reason. Contact your Probation Officer by reply.


----------



## AZA-02 (12 Dec 2004)

lol...ive got rights u na...lol


----------



## Sheerin (12 Dec 2004)

I know at Pearson you can get relatively close to the runway and still be on public property; I think its airport road where you can stand at the fence be less than 200 metres from where the planes touch down.  Its kinda cool to stand there and have the planes fly a mere 30 or so metres over your head.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

heck at pearson if you drive to Customs HQ you Pretty much are on the runway without going through any security check points at least thats how it was just over a year ago, I was actually quite shocked we just drove down there in a PMOV and were right at the base of one of the terminals pretty much.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2004)

Great thing to tell everyone. Better if you would have spoke to them personally about your security concerns, without telling the world.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

Well hey they hire Professionals and Experts on terrorism to look after those things I mean it was probably a lot more secure then I thought I mean come on as some members have pointed out I'm a 17 year old what do i know?


----------



## foerestedwarrior (12 Dec 2004)

A girl in my unit used to work security at pearson, she didnt ever get into the details, but from what i got from her, it is pretty secure.

Also, i heard about that seaking incident a few years back, and i do think that lasing pilots is a possible threat. Hell almost anything that can destroy any thing that they can get they will use.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Dec 2004)

I_A_N said:
			
		

> secondly my mum is a hair stylest and she would cut all the US diplomats and Canadian Diplomoats Birts and etc,'s hair in a thing she had in our house we had a few member of the FBI get their hair down at my house .



Not that I am slinging shtye here.......We must remember, only their hairdressers know for sure! Wasn't there a movie once called "Confessions of a Hairdresser" and "Confessions of a Taxi Driver", now maybe a new one "Confessions of a Hairdresser's Son". FBI agents getting their 'hair done' and talking about terrs. Eek!  :

I thought I've heard it all. I smell some serious BS here, and fresh and soft too.


Regards,

Wes

LMAO


----------



## little_mp (13 Dec 2004)

Right here, http://army.ca/quotes/?string=%22If+I+had+American+supply+lines%2C+British+planes%2C+German+officers+and+Canadian+troops%2C+I+could+take+over+the+world%22&search_attrib=case_sensitive&function=searchQuote


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Dec 2004)

You know I have googled that quote and have asked around. Everyone has heard it but there is no proof Rommel ever said it, at least none that I have seen. Until I actually see a source I believe this quote might have been a WW2 Military Urban Legend.


----------



## T.I.M. (13 Dec 2004)

Well, lasers as a means of attack by Islamic Terrorists really aren't a very likely scenario.  Islamic terrorism aims for horrific mass casualty events that will make big headlines.  Permanently damaging the eyes of a pilot is, in the end, only a nuisance tactic, since unless the laser used is powerful and fortuitously aimed, the plane is not going to crash.  All in all it's a great deal of effort for the terrorists to undertake for either a marginal or unlikely payoff.

By publicising this kind of thing what you're more likely to end up with is a bunch of homegrown American yahoos who decide its fun to take a case of beer and some Radio Shack gear out to the end of the runway and laze incoming planes for a lark.


----------



## little_mp (13 Dec 2004)

Thank you T.I.M thats what I've been trying to say but as soon as I mention I don't think terrorists would use them they start accusing me of being some sort of terrorist expert  ??? either way as for that Rommel quote who knows you will never know seems he died of forced suicide on October 14th 1944, further more he did face Canadian troops as he was in charge of the so called Atlantic Wall and he also was in Caen a city which I have been to that was Liberated by Canadian Troops


----------



## condor888000 (13 Dec 2004)

Doesn't need to necessarily blind the pilot, all it needs to do is distract them enough so that they aren't concentrating 100% on landing, or takeoff for that matter. We nearly had a crash this summer when I was in Debert. Reason? Pilot got a bit distracted for 1 sec and let their attitude drop too far, nearly dove right into the ground. This was at 55mph. Imagine what could happen at triple that speed? Granted the pilots would be vastly more experienced, but it doesn't mean that this isn't a very real threat.


----------



## Fusaki (13 Dec 2004)

IMHO lasers would not be very usefull to terrorists  at all.

The goal of terrorism isn't simply to kill people in the most efficient way possible. Its goal is to make a political statement. Why shine lasers at pilots to create a catastrophe that could easily be covered up as an accident due to pilot error? Airport security is already controlled so tightly that only a handfull of people would be in on the lie, and it could easily be justified by the complete negation of the terrorist's goals.

Think about it: the attacks on 9/11 didn't do much to hurt the American infrastructure. Bin Ladin's objective was to attack a symbol of what he hated in an elaborate and terrifying way. The goal is to induce fear and coerce the population. Not try and beat the west into submission using conventional methods. It would be far more effective to shoot down an airliner with some sort of rocket, an obvious terrorist weapon.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2004)

OMG - Maybe these chaps should listen to Ghostwalk an I_A_N and stop wasting valuable resources.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34


----------



## T.I.M. (13 Dec 2004)

Well, for a little perspective, if you read the FBI report, the threat is actually listed as LOW, and the FBI has no indication either that terrorists have got their hands on a military grade laser, or that there is any specific threat concerning laser attacks.   The warning was general, and not at all immediate.

One of the biggest problems with warning dissemination is rumour control, and the media seem to have taken this and cranked the rumour mills up several notches.   The fact is while it's a _potential_ threat, there are lots of things that are potential threats, and as threats go, this one is pretty marginal.   Lasers of all types have become common in the West, and there's any number of reasons for laser hits on planes that don't require vast terrorist conspiracies to explain - the leading one being locals idiots who think it's funny to aim at planes.

Frankly, if the terrorists _did_ get hold of a first-rate military grade laser blinder they'd be much better off to put it to work knocking out Coalition optics on the battlefield in Iraq or Arghanistan than trying to smuggle it (these things are portable yes, but not _that_ small) into the US for the dubious chance that they might crash a plane with it.


----------



## Inch (13 Dec 2004)

And if you asked someone 4 years ago how likely it would be that 2 airliners would be flown into the World Trade Center, knocking both buildings down, I highly doubt it would be given much more than a low threat warning.

The point is, we know they've been used in the past, Air Force aircrew have protective measures in place to prevent it, thus it is a threat, that's what we've been arguing all along. I never said it was highly likely, I simply said that it's a threat that we're concerned with at this point, from an operators perspective.


----------



## Acorn (13 Dec 2004)

Actually, the events of 11/09/01 have probably got quite a few more people thinking outside the box as to potential risks. One of the problems is that the quantity of potential threats has risen, as they aren't being eliminated in their infancy. The added problem is when these theories and possibilities are made public. They can cause concern where there should be none, and they can even plant ideas in the heads of potential terrorists.

I'm not sure if UBL or any of his cronies read Tom Clancy, who thought about the potential damage and effect of using an airliner as a missile some time before it really happened. Because of that no stone is being left unturned. 

Acorn


----------



## Lexi (13 Dec 2004)

Ian's right on this one folks.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Dec 2004)

Lexi said:
			
		

> Ian's right on this one folks.



Right on what? Personally I would listen to the flyboys on this then anyone else.


----------



## little_mp (13 Dec 2004)

HAHA lasers whats next Osama is actauly living in the white house using his Invisible suit   ??? I'm starting to belive from the lack of common sence some of you would belive that on here


----------



## condor888000 (13 Dec 2004)

Inch is the only military pilot I can find in this thread. I'm a civi one but that doesn't really count.

As I said though, this is a serious threat. Once more, we had a Major brief us on this sort of thing. They had him brief 50 teens from 16-18 years old. WE were warned to stay away from using something as low powered as a laser pointer since even something like that could damage your vision enough in a fairly short time to invalidate you medical. No medical, no flying. I have a feeling that this is pretty serious business.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Dec 2004)

Does not matter what you fly, it shows the danger that lasers have for any pilots, those that believe otherwise are just morons.


----------



## little_mp (13 Dec 2004)

Whats this medical have to do with a terrorist threat a chrashin a plan? Im failing to see relevance here...


----------



## Inch (13 Dec 2004)

condor888000 said:
			
		

> Inch is the only military pilot I can find in this thread. I'm a civi one but that doesn't really count.
> 
> As I said though, this is a serious threat. Once more, we had a Major brief us on this sort of thing. They had him brief 50 teens from 16-18 years old. WE were warned to stay away from using something as low powered as a laser pointer since even something like that could damage your vision enough in a fairly short time to invalidate you medical. No medical, no flying. I have a feeling that this is pretty serious business.



It doesn't matter, we both fly and it's a threat to both of us. My eyes aren't any different than yours, except they're a little older!   ;D

We had the same lectures when I did my aeromedical training in Winnipeg, scary stuff to say the least.



			
				I_A_N said:
			
		

> Whats this medical have to do with a terrorist threat a chrashin a plan? Im failing to see relevance here...



Best case....because you blind a pilot that can't be replaced in short order, and you get less and less experienced pilots flying.

Worst case....it blinds the pilots at a critical phase of flight with catastrophic results. Hopefully they've got time to overshoot instead of hitting the ground.


----------



## condor888000 (13 Dec 2004)

And you don't need glassses...lucky...

What I'm saying is that a low powered laser pointer that you can get for $20 at Radio Shack can damage your eyes bad enough in a very short exposure time for you to lose your medical, meaning that you lose your license. In effect, for $20, someone can wipe out $10,000 at least that was spent on training. Not including flight time after you're done. This is all civi stuff, much much more if it's a commercial or military pilot that gets hit. If a $20 laser pointer can do that in a short time frame, imagine what a more powerful one could do. It is certainly concievable that it could cause enough damage to cause the pilot to not become able to fly, at which point it becomes very likely that the aircraft could go down.


----------



## Bert (13 Dec 2004)

I think it can be agreed lasers and any interference to the pilot's control to the aircraft represents
a pausible danger.

Terrorists have consistently used simple and relatively inexpensive means to maximize damage.
A laser with enough optical power output to damage eyesight even momentarily, a
stable platform in which to aim the tighly focused beam, optics to maintain the beam
focus and significantly pass thru the optical coatings of the cockpit windows 
(and loss throught the air) is an expensive beast.   IR, visible, and UV lasers found commonly 
(under 30 dBm output) lack the ability to cause eye damage in short durations.   Maintaining and 
targetting a beam directly into the pilots eyes during take-off or landing is no small feat and 
would lack any consistent result.   I'd figure the use of lasers for the purposes of terrorism
and this scenario isn't likely.   There are simpler, cheaper, and more effective ways to cause crap 
like this.


----------



## Sheerin (30 Dec 2004)

Looks like someone is using lasers on commerical jets.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/29/laser.plane/index.html


----------



## Bert (30 Dec 2004)

According to the article, the beam that "light up" the aircraft was from a location
15 miles away.  The article didn't indicate the exposure length, the method
they used to come to that fact, or the relative optical power.  It would be 
interesting to find out if the beam followed the glide path or was a momentary 
flicker.  This would indicate if it was purposeful.  I doubt a majority of the population
would have the ability to specifically target the glide path of an aircraft from 15 miles
away.  

Lasers in the visible spectrum can be easily purchased for a few dollars
at 7 dBm and a focused beam of that power can be seen miles away.  I'd suspect
the air transportation routes are more vulnerable to idiots with commercial 
over-the-counter lasers than terrorists.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (31 Dec 2004)

Laser Beamed at Jet

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Authorities are investigating a mysterious laser beam that was directed into the cockpit of a commercial jet travelling at an altitude of 2600 meters.  The beam appeared Monday when the plane was about 25 kilometers from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, the FBI said.  "It was there for several seconds like (the plane) was being tracked," FBI agent Robert Hawk said.  The pilot was able to land the plane and air traffic controllers used radar to determine the laser came from a residential area in suburban Warrensville Heights.  Hawk said the laser had to have been fairly sophisticated to track a plane travelling at that altitude.  Authorities had no other leads.


----------



## Big Foot (31 Dec 2004)

it does seem to be a possibility for attack but honestly, aren't we talking about blinding two people here? to the best of my knowledge, copilots are trained piots and can therefore land the plane, albeit they have less experience than the pilot. but seriously, who thinks of these plots?


----------



## Inch (31 Dec 2004)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> it does seem to be a possibility for attack but honestly, aren't we talking about blinding two people here? to the best of my knowledge, copilots are trained piots and can therefore land the plane, albeit they have less experience than the pilot. but seriously, who thinks of these plots?



If you recall, both pilots in the Sea King laser incident were blinded. Your point is what exactly? It only takes a second or two to do permanent damage. There's a reason every pilot I know tends to duck and close their eyes when some idiot is waving around a laser pointer. Maybe the rest of the military should have the same laser safety lecture that aircrew are given.


----------



## Acorn (31 Dec 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> If you recall, both pilots in the Sea King laser incident were blinded.



I thought it was the pilot (IIRC right seat) and the USN Intel guy observing out the same side. The co-pilot wasn't injured. In any case, the injuries were not immediately blinding.

Acorn


----------



## Bert (31 Dec 2004)

As much as the potential for lasers to create serious problems for landing aircraft, these articles 
do not provide all the facts.  Radars and civilian airport equipment cannot track laser beams.
Some other method of optical detection was used.  And it likely had to be "triangulated"
in some way. The articles do not specify how long the aircraft was tracked consistently and the manner 
in which the beam was illumuniated the aircraft.  Damaging beams are not usually in the visible spectrum, 
typically small and tight beam diameter, high in optical power > 50 dBm, and one must have a stable 
platform and targetting ability.  Beams that diffuse quickly over distances, are visible, and use unstable 
platforms are not the type that damage eyes or burn but the glare/diffusion/and relative brightness in a 
dark cockpit is more startling to the pilot.  You'll rarely find lasers in the visible spectrum above 25 dBm 
commercially and most pen lasers have a surprising output power of 7 dBm.  I'm speculating but it seems 
copy-cat-idiots-with-lasers (IWLs) and are running amouk.


----------



## Korus (31 Dec 2004)

The origin of the beam could be roughly guestimated knowing what portion of the cockpit was illuminated (from pilot), and where the aircraft was at that time (from the radar). But that's all heresay, I wasn't there and you're right: there aren't enough facts given in the articles.

And stop using dBm! I come to these boards to get away from my civvie life as an Engineer


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Dec 2004)

If by "roughly guestimated" you mean within 40 miles or so then yeah you're probably right   In order to triangulate it to any usable accuracy you'd need measurements which there's no way they could have gotten.  I don't understand why they'd invent false info like that though.


----------



## Korus (31 Dec 2004)

Yup, that's exactly what I mean by roughly guestimated.


----------



## Inch (1 Jan 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I thought it was the pilot (IIRC right seat) and the USN Intel guy observing out the same side. The co-pilot wasn't injured. In any case, the injuries were not immediately blinding.
> 
> Acorn



You may be right, I thought it was two pilots. As for which side it was, it's not possible for a backseater to observe out the right side of the aircraft from his seat, he'd have to be at the cargo door which is approx 20 ft or so from the pilot's position, that laser would have to be moving around quite a bit to get them both.  The left side is a different story, the upper personnel door is right behind the left seat pilot, in this case the backseater would still have to be standing to see out that window which is a possibility if they were taking photos of the trawler. 

To put it to rest, semantics I know, but the Aircraft captain is not always in the right seat. We switch around.

As for "roughly guesstimating", radar is pretty accurate as far as known positions.  We fly instrument approaches with radar only, it's as accurate as an ILS. The flight path to the runway is also a very narrow corridor, like less than 18 degrees wide measured from the runway. The most you're ever off runway centre line is a couple degrees once you're vectored onto it. Also, 3 degree glideslopes are used, so you have a known position within a hundred feet of the aircraft in all three dimensions. They knew exactly where the aircraft was, as for where the beam came from, I too think they BS'd a little, though I have a feeling that 15 miles isn't too far off.


----------



## Bert (1 Jan 2005)

This was the article with over-simplifications, questionable facts,
particularly when they "used radar" to determine the origin
of the beam.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6769203

The general public does not know alot about lasers and the media
often exacerbates ignorance by confounding facts and details leading
to wide speculations.   No real information has been provided in these 
articles except for fact lasers have been used and noticed

Yet, I'm very surprised lasers in the visible spectrum at powers
as high as 7 dbm (can put a visible spot on a over wall 2 km away
and seen by targets kms away) are allowed to be sold to the general
public for mere dollars.  They may not be eye damaging at this
power but laser reflections can be disorientating and distracting to 
drivers of cars, trucks, aircraft, especially when its 
focused and collimated, and when abused by IWLs.   We seen
people use them in theatres and off balconies to flash cars and
pedestrians and personally its not the kind of thing (at that
output power) I'd like to see people use in this way.  Yet, its hard to
regulate since its widely available everywhere.

Next it will be dematerializing phase pistols.. get yours for $35.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2005)

LASER ATTACKS: This post from SgtStryker.com makes sense to me:

_Lasers are not being used to blind pilots. Lasers are being used to measure straight line distance from the ground to an aircraft aircraft at its most vulnerable state - landing. An aircraft on takeoff would be a more difficult target - maximum power and maximum climb. But a landing ship slows down to a speed just short of a stall and follows a prescribed path of flight .

The information regarding an aircraft's peak vulnerability would be invaluable. Documenting landing approaches and and straight line distances would be highly useful in target acquisition. That information is critical regarding available weapons systems. . . .

The laser activity is more than likely a target acquisition exercise.

And people are taking notes.

There are too many cities and too many locations reporting laser incidents. In my view, they are calculating maximum ranges, with no intent to blind the crew.

I'm no expert on this, but it seems plausible._

Two other things:

1. Low powered lasers can startle or distract, but to cause permanent eye injury would require a cooperative target. You would be in much more danger if you were using binoculars or some other focusing optics and caught a laser beam, since the binos you are holding would do all the work for the terrorists. Similarly, an airline pilot should be looking over his entire field of vision, and at the control papaneland not be focusing on a point, like the unfortunate pilot and observer on the helicopter who were concentrating on the target.

2. The spread of stories is beginning to suggest urban legands or UFO report "flaps". I honestly believe many of the reported "sightings" would turn out to be fairly innocent events. I have seen bright flashes while looking out an airplane window during T/O and landing, which resolved themselves to be reflections from car or building windows a moment later.


----------



## Acorn (3 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> You may be right, I thought it was two pilots. As for which side it was, it's not possible for a backseater to observe out the right side of the aircraft from his seat, he'd have to be at the cargo door which is approx 20 ft or so from the pilot's position, that laser would have to be moving around quite a bit to get them both.   The left side is a different story, the upper personnel door is right behind the left seat pilot, in this case the backseater would still have to be standing to see out that window which is a possibility if they were taking photos of the trawler.
> 
> To put it to rest, semantics I know, but the Aircraft captain is not always in the right seat. We switch around.



I'm not too familiar with the Sea Thing, so right or left, or even out the front, could have been the case. All I know is that one of the CDN pilots suffered serious eye damage and was forced to leave the CF (well, he probably could have stayed in flying a desk, but he was permanently removed from flight status) and the other injury was the USN Intel Lt who was snapping photos (he was not a pilot). IIRC the second pilot was not injured.

The fight for benefits these guys made is a separate horror story (one that's on-going for the CDN pilot).

Acorn


----------



## Inch (3 Jan 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'm not too familiar with the Sea Thing, so right or left, or even out the front, could have been the case. All I know is that one of the CDN pilots suffered serious eye damage and was forced to leave the CF (well, he probably could have stayed in flying a desk, but he was permanently removed from flight status) and the other injury was the USN Intel Lt who was snapping photos (he was not a pilot). IIRC the second pilot was not injured.
> 
> The fight for benefits these guys made is a separate horror story (one that's on-going for the CDN pilot).
> 
> Acorn



Seen, I've heard quite a few horror stories about getting benefits from VA. Not a good way to thank someone for serving their country.


----------



## PlatoonWatchdog (3 Jan 2005)

MissMolsonIndy makes a good point, it will be interesting to see how the US Administration continues to instill the siege mindset on the US populace     :threat:.   The Threat Level barometer   :skull:, repeated tabloid-style news reports from the major networks   , incessant fearmongering in the print media, now lasers, what's next?   

You can't justify to the masses that they are consistently under threat (and accordingly not lose votes whilst spending megazillions on the war) unless they FEEL afraid-then it's okay, do whatever it takes.   An exercise in spin at it's worst-keep the people scared, that's a dirty game.   

Is there a real threat?   Sure there is, to what degree, experts disagree-mild to wild.   But any squad-sized band of fanatics can move "under the radar" in a country with 260 million people.         

This debacle known as The Iraq War has some tremendous spin going.   Don't even get me started on the Jessica Lynch "rescue" and subsequent "hero" label   :-X.   I'm sure her book will sell out   ???.   I'm more fascinated with the spin angle than the daily updates of the attempts to suppress insurgent activity, which makes the headlines nightly.

My two cents...

Cheers,

 PlatoonWatchdog


----------



## childs56 (3 Jan 2005)

military grade lasers are a very serious matter. The can burn your retinas out at ranges of 3 km or more. Usually the damage happens a while after the person was hit with the laser. The fact that some one is intentionally using lasers is of concern, this matter is serious although it may not seem like it. The realm of people insulting this situation is disturbing to the fact that no matter how minor the attack is, it is still an intentional attack. we need to look at ways to avoid these situations before a plane does crash due to this. Lasers are more dangerous then just the cheap pointer you buy at the local dollar store.  They can and will burn material, burn skin, cause damage to ther eyes. The way that it was presented may have been alittle off the handle, the new terroist attack using lasers. Yes kinda makes you want to laugh but still it is a threat. My 2 cents worth


----------



## Bert (3 Jan 2005)

I don't think people are generally insulting the situation.  The articles presented in the thread
and in the media provide evidence "lasers" can and are being used at aircraft.  Unfortunately, the
articles do not provide many facts or garble the facts enough which leads to ambiguity and 
speculation.  The nature of exposures, the laser types used, and the intention are not known yet.


----------



## Jungle (5 Jan 2005)

Here's an article on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48779-2005Jan4.html?
It seems like the only organisation trying to scare people is the media. The govt agencies are not twisting anything, as in this case: 


> "We have no credible intelligence of a terrorist group using lasers on the homeland," FBI spokesman Bill Carter said. "Out of an abundance of caution, we're asking the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate these issues and report them to the FBI."


While the threat of terrorists using lasers to attack planes is low, there are idiots out there who do this for whatever reason:


> Pilots and FAA officials said there have been hundreds of incidents reported over the past decade in which laser beams of different varieties have tracked planes or impaired pilot vision. The most widely available lasers are display pointers. These are not as much of a concern as the high-powered lasers used for astronomy, in light shows and by the military. *Some laser beams can reach 30,000 feet*.


And the danger is real:


> An FAA study found that advances in technology have made even high-powered lasers more widely available, less expensive and dangerous if aimed at pilots. "A laser attack could be quickly deployed and withdrawn, leaving no obvious collateral damage or projectile residue, and would be difficult to detect and defend against," said a June study by the FAA's Office of Aerospace Medicine. "The possible visual impairment, startle, distraction and the loss of spatial orientation created by such an attack could make landing an aircraft difficult at best."


----------



## Meridian (5 Jan 2005)

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-01-04-laser-aircraft_x.htm
   

N.J. man charged with aiming laser at aircraft
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
A New Jersey man was charged Tuesday under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a charter jet flying over his home, temporarily distracting the pilots.

David Banach, 38, is the first person charged in a rash of recent incidents in which lasers were shined at aircraft around the country. Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.

"We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes," said Christopher Christie, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey.

Banach made an initial appearance in court Tuesday and was released on $100,000 bond. He was charged with interfering with a flight crew under the USA Patriot Act. He also was charged with lying to federal officers. The charges carry a maximum jail sentence of 25 years.

Unrelated incidents of laser beams hitting planes have been reported in Medford, Ore.; Colorado Springs; Cleveland; Houston and Washington.

Banach's attorney blasted federal officials for what she called an overreaction. "One would think they would want to devote their time and resources to prosecuting real terrorists, not people like my client," Gina Mendola-Longarzo told the Associated Press. 

She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars and illuminating trees and neighbor's houses. FBI agents and police swarmed Banach's Parsnippany, N.J., home Friday night after a green laser was pointed at a police helicopter overhead. The helicopter was carrying a charter jet pilot who was attempting to locate the source of a green laser beam that hit his flight on Dec. 29 as it prepared to land at nearby Teterboro Airport. 

After being taken to an FBI office and given a lie-detector test, Banach said he had hit the jet with the beam, court documents say. During questioning by the FBI, Banach showed an agent his laser. After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.

Lasers have become increasingly cheap and commonplace in recent years. Thousands of inexpensive lasers used for home repair jobs were sold before Christmas, some for as little as $15.



*sigh*.

USA Patriot Act...


----------



## Scratch_043 (5 Jan 2005)

Pretty harsh punnishment for this, but also pretty stupid of the guy to shine it at aircraft.


----------



## vangemeren (6 Jan 2005)

This guy isn't a terrorist, but none the less, an idiot:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104939324857_100348524/?hub=World



> U.S. man charged under Patriot Act for laser
> 
> Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Gilligan (6 Jan 2005)

What kind of laser could it be to reach an airplane???


----------



## Tpr.Orange (6 Jan 2005)

Who cares.... if he did it ..hes guilty and he should be punished... why would you do that in the first place? where is the intelligence?


----------



## gt102 (6 Jan 2005)

CFN. Orange said:
			
		

> why would you do that in the first place? where is the intelligence?



there isnt any... Its just plain stupid what he did. Im glad he's getting charged and such


----------



## Recce41 (6 Jan 2005)

Fellas
 As a safety dude at the school. Most lasers you buy are classed for eye safety. The Leo/Coyote/LAV laser is after 3 ft or meters, when ever the gunnery guys decide. Is eye safe. As stated only the low freq lasers used in light shows, are dangerous. They have a lower freq are a wider beam. A aircraft traveling at 200k/h ever at a few 100 ft, well if they do hit the pilot. Instead of hanging him. They should hire him. 
 You could blind a pilot with a mil watt hand held light. 
 I think it's basic American Terrorist fears. OOOOOO. The boogy man is coming. If they would worry about real problems. They and we be better off.


----------



## Gilligan (9 Jan 2005)

Well, obviously he did something incredibly stupid....who knows what the guy was thinking at the time, and he deserves to be punished harshly....even if only for his stupidity.  My previous comment was simply eluding to the fact that....you can't just point one of those little board meeting style lasers that you get at the dollar store and actually hit the plane....so he must have been using something larger....thus he must have meant to do it and needs to be punished harshly!  (sorry, I was vague)


----------



## Jungle (13 Jan 2005)

Here is another article that deals with the matter: 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/01/12/896589-ap.html



> Mineta also issued a stern warning that U.S. officials will aggressively prosecute those caught shining laser beams into cockpits. The bright lasers - usually green - can temporarily blind pilots.
> 
> "We will not allow careless people making stupid choices to put pilots and their passengers at risk," Mineta said.


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Jan 2005)

There was an incident in Phoenix today (maybe yesterday)


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (14 Jan 2005)

Now the US gov't is going to start shooting lasers (albeit non-dangerous ones) at people who are not authorized to enter ADIZ's (Air Defence Identification Zones)

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/335-full.html#188958

Could make for an interesting lightshow.  Also I'd really like to hear what the laser warning would sound like on the ATIS, would be quite entertaining to see the reaction of my pax! >


----------



## qjdb (14 Jan 2005)

Gilligan said:
			
		

> What kind of laser could it be to reach an airplane???



Well, it says in the article that he used a green one.  The red ones, won't travel that far, but the green ones will go out to up to 9000 ft (2.6 km), so plenty good for a charter aircraft coming in for a landing.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/5a47

Quentin


----------



## Bert (15 Jan 2005)

You have to look at the specs of the laser (printed on the box and on the laser's label).   
The specs will indicate the laser's operating class and output power.   The output power, 
the ability of the laser to culminate the beam (keep it focused and undiffused), and the 
conditions of the medium in which the beam travels are the main "emitter to
target" characteristics.

The intensity of the laser is a condition of how much light strikes a given area.   
As an example, a light bulb throws off white light in all directions.   Take a 1 cm2 area about
three feet away from the bulb and you can calculate the intensity of the light striking
that 1 cm2 area.   Relatively not much.   A laser, by design, manufacture, and conditioning, is able to
culminate a beam of light to strike the 1 cm2 area three feet away with more
intensity.   The laser and the light bulb may emit the same amount of light as an example,
but the intensity of the light striking the 1 cm2 area is different.

In this regard, a 1mW visible light pen type laser (0 dBm) easily purchased from an store can put an 
observable spot on a building 1 km away.   The diameter of the beam leaving the emitter
may be 1 mm but may strike the building a km away with a diameter of an 2.5 cm, depending
on the quality of the optics and interference/absorption of particulates in the air.   If it were 
possible to maintain the beam's position well enough, one could see that beam kilometers
away by the naked eye.   

Unfortunately, pen lasers as high as 5 mW (or approx 7 dBm) in the visible spectrum are easily 
available.   Its possible to strobe or flash anything kilometers away and people would
momentarily see the beam as its directed into their line of sight.   It would appear as a bright 
flashlight kilometes away (but normal flashlights diffuse quickly and the intensity decreases,
pen type lasers maintain beam focus and therefore intensity over greater distances).   

Without a stable platform, its hard for pen-type lasers to strike a target like an eye-ball
kilometes away and damage it.   Shakey hands, refraction of air currents, and various 
characteristics make it difficult for idiots with pen lasers (IWLs) to damage the eyes of pilots or 
drivers of vehicles.   You have to look directly into the beam for some time depending
on intensity especially kilometers away.   For sure the momentary flash of bright light would 
be startling and affect concentration and hence the concern.  

Terrorists desire the highest chance of destroying a target using the simplest unexpected
means.   Flashing pen type lasers or lasers of that class realistically couldn't achieve that goal.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Mar 2008)

Mods, please repost or delete if posted already before.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080305/pilot_laser_incidents_080305/20080305?hub=TopStories



> *Pilots across Canada report being flashed by lasers*
> Updated Wed. Mar. 5 2008 11:38 PM ET
> 
> toronto.ctv.ca
> ...


----------



## gillbates (6 Mar 2008)

While law enforcement is looking for the perps, is there anything pilots can do to protect themselves? Eye protection?


----------



## karl28 (6 Mar 2008)

I saw this on the CTV news web site yesterday makes you wonder why people are so stupid .  I hope that once the people involved in doing this are caught that the police can throw the book at them .


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2008)

I was lased late one night several years ago over Mississauga while flying the Peel Region Police Helicopter Trial. It happened while we were orbitting over a crime scene just north of the QEW, and the idiot was about halfway up a high-rise apartment building - several people were out on balconies watching us. It was only a laser pointer, but it was pretty bright and the red spot on the building was surprisingly large. As soon as we were done, we flew over and put the NiteSun on him, at narrow focus. Our 30 million candlepower easily won. He probably felt several degrees warmer.

We didn't bother sending somebody up to visit him. It would have been too difficult to determine the correct apartment and pin it on him, plus our buddies on the ground had had enough to deal with for a while and didn't need to go beating on a bunch of doors just to (most likely) find some kid who thought that he was being clever and had just been scared dungless anyway.

We did, however, get guys onto the couple of others who, at various times and locations, aimed spotlights at us. They were at houses, which made things easier. I didn't bother to ask if charges were ever laid (shining bright lights at aircraft in flight is a crime).

It's impossible to determine addresses from a fast-moving jet at higher altitudes. Announcing this will probably inspire others though.


----------



## Inch (6 Mar 2008)

I've been lased before too. I didn't find out about it until after the fact though. We got a complaint from some whale watchers just south of Victoria that we flew over them at 150ft (pretty exact height they reported), when questioned how they knew we were at 150ft they said they used a laser range finder. They happened to be in US territorial waters at the time so the lasing incident was reported to the US authorities for prosecution since lasing aircraft is an offense south of the border.

There are laser visors out, unfortunately, they can only be designed to protect against very specific wave lengths and as such, are not 100% effective against all lasers.


----------



## Celticgirl (6 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I was lased late one night several years ago over Mississauga while flying the Peel Region Police Helicopter Trial. It happened while we were orbitting over a crime scene just north of the QEW, and the idiot was about halfway up a high-rise apartment building - several people were out on balconies watching us. It was only a laser pointer, but it was pretty bright and the red spot on the building was surprisingly large. As soon as we were done, we flew over and put the NiteSun on him, at narrow focus. Our 30 million candlepower easily won. He probably felt several degrees warmer.



Awesome. Love how you handled that one. ;D

Like you, I was also thinking that the news report might inspire some idiots to try it - like the morons that will put a penny on a train track. What the heck is wrong with some people?


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> (shining bright lights at aircraft in flight is a crime).



MSM says it's illegal in the US, and it appears some laws are being worked on, but here in Canada, is this a Criminal Code offense, or something under one of the acts/regs governing aviation?


----------



## PetitGuerrier (6 Mar 2008)

It appears the green ones are much more powerful than the red ones, not from the power of the unit but from the wave properties of the color.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/657a/

And some events here: 
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.astro.amateur/2005-01/0965.html

From my POV the planes windshield should filter out these lasers (if possible), the units are sold publically and no training comes with it.


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Awesome. Love how you handled that one. ;D



Natural response.

NiteSun is a fun piece of kit.

There was a problem bar in Brampton with a patio. Calls to it were common, and there were more than a couple of nights where a bunch of idiots would still be flailing away at each other in the parking lot while surrounded by patrons, coppers and their cars, and ambulances. We would fly over several times during the evening and put the beam on the patio as a friendly reminder. At narrow focus, it would be about three or four feet in diameter - I used to joke that we could melt the ice in the drinks from a thousand feet.

There was a policeman having a party on the patio of his apartment building on another night. We put the beam on it briefly just to say "hello" as we passed by on route to somewhere else. The building superintendent remarked to him a couple of days later that there was a huge drop in water pressure in the building as we went overhead and he couldn't understand how the helicopter could cause that. The explanation was quite simple - every non-police resident simultaneously flushed their stash in fear of an imminent raid.


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2008)

PetitGuerrier said:
			
		

> From my POV the planes windshield should filter out these lasers (if possible),



Not a practical or economical solution.

To filter out laser light, one must filter out that part of the spectrum in which the laser operates.

Now, filter out red and green and what is one left seeing?

Not good by day, and even worse by night.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The explanation was quite simple - every non-police resident simultaneously flushed their stash in fear of an imminent raid.



But the police residents knew it wasn't a raid, so they didn't flush their's 8) ;D (j/k)


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> But the police residents knew it wasn't a raid, so they didn't flush their's 8) ;D (j/k)



They were all outside at the party...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> patio



..but the druggies in the alleyway, thought they had finally reached utopia....


[allright Mods, :-[ back on topic]


----------



## PetitGuerrier (6 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not a practical or economical solution.
> 
> To filter out laser light, one must filter out that part of the spectrum in which the laser operates.
> 
> ...



Oh, right, makes sense  :-X 

Can you make the assumption that the laser will come only from certain angles so you dont have to do the whole windshield, like sunshades in a (older) car?


----------



## benny88 (6 Mar 2008)

PetitGuerrier said:
			
		

> Can you make the assumption that the laser will come only from certain angles so you dont have to do the whole windshield, like sunshades in a (older) car?



   Might help with commercial airliners, although the pilots need to see through that part of the windscreen as well. But it wouldn't work if some clown was in a high rise shooting at a helicopter.


----------



## Loachman (7 Mar 2008)

We have laser protective visors for our helmets, which are obviously far more practical and cheaper than whole windscreens or bubbles. They still only cover certain portions of the spectrum, and the threat is mainly from lasers operating in the non-visible portion of the spectrum such as rangefinders, designators, and weapons. Laser pointers and other non-regulated civilian lasers generally operate in the visible portion, and blocking that out by any means impairs ones vision.

As for angles, one can presume that they will come from below the aircraft and from any direction and blocking any of that out is unacceptable. Conflicting traffic could be anywhere in the same area and one would certainly like to see that before it fills too big a part of one's field of view, and it's nice to be able to see the ground while attempting to land on it.

A more practical and fun, albeit not politically acceptable, solution would be laser-homing missiles.


----------



## Celticgirl (7 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> A more practical and fun, albeit not politically acceptable, solution would be laser-homing missiles.



 :rofl:


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jul 2009)

The ff. update didn't occur in Canada, but is related:



> "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535161,00.html?test=latestnews
> 
> *Man's Laser Blinded Police Chopper Pilot, FBI Says*
> Tuesday, July 28, 2009
> ...


----------



## Loachman (10 Aug 2009)

Excellent. Convict him, tape his eyelids open, and see how he likes his toy.

Punishment should always fit the crime, be imaginative, and provide deterrence and entertainment as appropriate to the individual audience member.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Aug 2015)

Reviving necrothread with a Canadian incident, with a reminder:  according to _Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, _"Any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."_


> A member of the Canadian Armed Forces has been arrested for allegedly pointing a laser at a York Regional Police helicopter on the weekend.
> 
> Nicholas Caranci, 19, is facing charges of mischief endangering life, unlawfully engaging in behaviour that endangers an aircraft, and projecting a bright light source in navigable airspace.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Aug 2015)

I agree we should not judge in advance of all the facts being known. But am I the only one here who thinks this is totally biased reporting to make the CF look bad?

The guy is a reservist, obviously (not paraded since June - 32 Serv. Bn). This is something he was therefore doing at home, wearing his civvies - not uniform, at a time when he is not even subject to the Code of Discipline.

He was not on service, on a base, in uniform or participating in any CF activity. How is being a member of the CF related in any way form or shape to his action for which he is being arrested? What is the relevance of this reference to the CF in the news story? None.

Yet the article almost make it sound as though this happened as a result of his being in the CF, of acting as a member of the CF.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Aug 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I agree we should not judge in advance of all the facts being known. But am I the only one here who thinks this is totally biased reporting to make the CF look bad?


You raise an interesting question, given there's no ref to military service in the police news release (attached).  Also, here's the YouTube video from the police service.

It'll be interesting to hear more in court re:  how the military link was made, and why it matters.

For the record, here's the CF's statement (at the bottom of the news story):


> Full Canadian Military Statement:
> 
> Private Nicholas Caranci enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces on February 18th, 2014. He last paraded with his unit, 32 Service Battalion, on June 7th, 2014.
> 
> ...


----------



## CountDC (19 Aug 2015)

Jun 2014?  Sounds like he has been NES which raises the question of why he is still a mbr of the unit.  Should have been released by now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Sep 2016)

This from The Canadian Press, highlights mine -- shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> Provincial police are investigating a report of a laser being pointed at a U.S. military aircraft in northern Ontario.
> 
> *Police say they received a report late Tuesday night that a laser was pointed at the aircraft, which was flying at 36,000 feet (almost 11000 metres).*
> 
> ...


Happy to hear from experts, but this is the first I've heard of any plane that high up over Canada being dinged and reporting it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2016)

I wonder if the person even realized they were pointing at an aircraft at that height or could even get a hit on it?


----------



## Loachman (2 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if the person even realized


 that there was an aircraft up there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2016)

yes at 36,000' your getting to the point that a person might not realize it's there. Also the odds of being able to dazzle it at that range with a hand held is pretty unlikely. I have a green laser on one my rifles, I want to say 5W but can't recall for sure. In daylight I can see the dot on a target out to about 200m. Nighttime further than that, but I have not tried to far for safety reasons. Keep in mind these cheap lasers are not as well made as military ones and diffuse much faster. (I treat lasers a bit like firearms)


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Sep 2016)

Perhaps the reason the incident was reported was its unlikeliness, given the factors raised in the three preceding posts.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ....... (I treat lasers a bit like firearms)



Exactly how they should be treated.

Just wondering if the culprit in this case may have had a "rangefinder" and was trying it out?


----------



## Occam (2 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> yes at 36,000' your getting to the point that a person might not realize it's there. Also the odds of being able to dazzle it at that range with a hand held is pretty unlikely. I have a green laser on one my rifles, I want to say 5W but can't recall for sure. In daylight I can see the dot on a target out to about 200m. Nighttime further than that, but I have not tried to far for safety reasons. Keep in mind these cheap lasers are not as well made as military ones and diffuse much faster. (I treat lasers a bit like firearms)



It's actually quite easy to obtain devices with that kind of power now...which is part of the problem.  Check out http://www.wickedlasers.com/krypton, which is a 1 watt laser.  The laser on your rifle is under 500 mW, but probably much lower than that.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Sep 2016)

There are more questions than answers on this one:  how did the ac realize it was being tagged?  I have met very few crew members, who at cruise altitudes, ever even looking out the window for traffic.  Was it a military ac with on board sensors?  What type of scope was the person using to be able to locate, focus upon and tag an a/c at that altitude?


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Sep 2016)

Most military lasers are not in th visible light spectrum...


----------



## Occam (2 Sep 2016)

Military lasers, yes.  But higher power green and blue lasers may have a visible beam due to Rayleigh scattering (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer for more information).  You wouldn't need to have the beam aimed at you, you'd be able to see the beam dancing in front of the aircraft.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (3 Sep 2016)

Exactly, speaking from personal experience, blue laser is actually easy to spot (even got lased right in the eyes). However from what I've encounter it was around 2k feet, not 36k. I'm assuming it must have been a powerful laser.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (3 Sep 2016)

I read somewhere that lasers can interfere with the electronic instruments in an aircraft, causing gauges and other registers to report information that is not necessarily correct. 

...and as we all know, at some altitudes it can cause injury to the pilots. 

The most perplexing thing is, why don't people realize that there is possibility that pointing a laser anywhere above the horizon has potential to come in contact with aircraft? Oh right, it's because human stupidity is infinite.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Perhaps the reason the incident was reported was its unlikeliness, given the factors raised in the three preceding posts.



Most reasonable explanation - an unusual set of coincidental factors that raise the probabilities above that of common coincidence?


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Sep 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Was it a military ac with on board sensors?



I was replying to this, but I just realized I may have misinterpreted what YZT meant.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I was replying to this, but I just realized I may have misinterpreted what YZT meant.



My bet would be a 532nm (green) laser that happened to sweep the cockpit of a US Mil a/c.  yes, 'some' mil a/c have Band I/III LWR, and a green laser, even uncoded/PCM'd, definitely would flag a Band I LWR, but if that was how a mil a/c was warned about the laser 'engagement', then i don't think you'd hear a lot of details about how the OPP are still looking for the offender...

Mein :2c:

G2G


----------



## Loachman (4 Sep 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that lasers can interfere with the electronic instruments in an aircraft, causing gauges and other registers to report information that is not necessarily correct.



I've read that only once - here.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've read that only once - here.



But, but . . . it was on the internet . . . it must be true!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Sep 2016)

lasers are being directed / targeted at aircraft in some operations, and at significant altitudes.  There is thought that they may be mounted on tripod, etc for stability and added accuracy in getting beam on target.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (4 Sep 2016)

In Kuwait it's considered a hobby by the locals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2016)

The latest (in French):  it appears a teen's being charged with pointing a laser @ a CF-18 in Quebec:


> Un jeune homme qui s’amusait à pointer un laser sur un avion de chasse à la base des Forces canadiennes Bagotville y réfléchira sans doute à deux fois avant de recommencer puisqu’il a été arrêté peu de temps par la police de Saguenay.
> 
> Deux avions de chasse CF-18 étaient en phase d’approche quand l’un d’eux a été aveuglé temporairement par un laser. Le pilote en charge de la formation a averti immédiatement la tour de contrôle de la base, qui a notifié la police militaire, qui a elle-même averti la police de Saguenay.
> 
> ...


----------

