Pointing Lasers at Aircraft

[little_mp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A couple of more cases.

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

 

[Inch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.