As a menial GA pilot, back when those war surplus anti-aircraft spotlights were popularly used in the US for advertising events, I flew through one, low altitude night VFR of course, and at least virtually soiled myself, but after a moment I realized what the intense flash was about, and went back to aviating. Despite the intensity, my vision wasn't affected at all.
Those green l@sers are being sold in abusive intensities, but it seems to me that if shone from below they need to bounce off something high in the cockpit and will be somewhat diffused and unlikely to reach an eye with any significant energy.
What am I missing? (And fire away, of course - I realize it's a hot topic.)
How much ground can you see while sat in the cockpit? A l@ser in that area will hit your eyes directly. I've been hit, and it's not my idea of fun. I definitely didn't want to look for anything in that direction, which could pose a problem.
Owning those l@sers should be equalised with owning a weapon, and as there are no permits it'd be owning an illegal weapon. Couple of months free food and lodging should be the minimum for pointing one at aircraft.
Right now, they're getting a slap on the wrist in my neck of the woods. Probable effect: Nil. As usual, it will take accidents before someone decides to actually do something about it.
Teenagers are pretty stupid so they won't know how dangerous it is to pilots until they are put in jail. So put them in jail, maybe they will get smarter, I don't think so but it is worth a try.
During an approach in night VMC, the l@ser beam came right through the cockpit, we were about 1000' on finals, and the beam came from a building on the left. The idiots can spot us so easily with the nav, strobes, landing lights, etc. I turned of ALL lights for 20 seconds, then back on, the sucker could not track us!
Its just not pilots that are at risk. Think of all the children and other passengers looking out the windows. They don't know to look away. People that point l@sers at aircraft need to be held criminally liable. Heck, sue the crap out of them.
Got hit from 5 or 6 different locations from 8000-1000 into GRU last night. All Green 532's. Probably got the cockpit 20 times or more.
Ordered some goggles today and will test them out next week.
About 6 months ago I got hit badly on departure from GRU at 1000 feet. Flash blindness in that eye for @ 1 minute then saw a spot for a couple of hours. Had a retinal eye scan the next am and thankfully no damage.
The problem is you don't know what they are shooting 5mw or 1w.....or even 4w. A 1w can do permanent damage to 1000ft. Flash blind to 3000.
Those green l@sers are being sold in abusive intensities, but it seems to me that if shone from below they need to bounce off something high in the cockpit and will be somewhat diffused and unlikely to reach an eye with any significant energy.
What am I missing? (And fire away, of course - I realize it's a hot topic.)
I've been 'lazed' a few times now, and up until recently had been lucky enough to have not had a massive hit on my eyes.........just glancing passes and light scatter from reflected rays in the cockpit. Those were unpleasant enough and affected my vision. However, a couple of months ago whilst GA flying at night at 3,000' I looked down out of the port side window at precisely the same moment somebody decided to l@ser the aircraft. I got it square in the eyes. Thankfully the autopilot was engaged and I had another pilot sat next to me as I was temporarily blinded. It was such incredibly intense light. I couldnt see a damn thing for about a minute. After that it took quite a time for the effects to dissapear and my companion had to take over the flying. Heaven forbid that I'd been in the approach phase and on my own up front. I'm not sure that I'd have been able to manage the situation. These damned things are dangerous.
Why do people aim at planes? I've heard very few attacks on vehicles yet loads of attacks on planes. Do you think it is just because people think they can get away with it for planes?
Thanks for the useful replies. I hadn't paid attention to the numbers and didn't realize that these were commonly available in watt+ energies. I agree that level is extremely dangerous.
Assuming sale/possession of a l@ser that strong is illegal in the US, ALPA or some interested group might very inexpensively have at least a small impact by having their legal people send letters reminding eBay et al of the issue. Beyond that, what to do? US Customs is too busy to interdict (these are surely Asian sourced), and the perps are either malicious or ignorant of the potential consequences to their target or themselves.
Interestingly Wikipedia says the high-powered green ones are based on IR diodes and retain a large IR component so goggles (or cockpit-window films) would need to take that into account since the invisible IR component is damaging too. Laser pointer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Safe flight to all, and thanks again for the education.
Why do people aim at planes? I've heard very few attacks on vehicles yet loads of attacks on planes. Do you think it is just because people think they can get away with it for planes?
The Sea Shepherd terrorists have used l@sers pionted at ships captains/crew fer many a year - nothing happens to them and they get the full support of the Australian Green party.
My recomendation to anybody who would like to piont a l@ser at any sort of human controlled machine is to first join the Sea Shepherd terrorist group then yer gets immunity..
Interestingly Wikipedia says the high-powered green ones are based on IR diodes and retain a large IR component so goggles (or cockpit-window films) would need to take that into account since the invisible IR component is damaging too.
As long as the googles/glasses you purchased had an OD >5 that would protect the eyes fully.
Optical Density 5 would reduce light by factor of 100,000 at the wavelengths for which it operated. For example if it applied at all visible/IR/UV wavelengths you could stare at the sun through a telescope with no danger assuming the filter was perfect, fitted to the objective not the eyepiece, you do not align the telescope by looking along the barrel etc. I am NOT recommending you should do this - a projection system is still better if you really wanted to look at the sun.
So the Optical Density needs to be high at only the wavelength you need to block and no other - and this assumes all the problem l@sers have the same wavelength (don't know if they do or not, it seems quite likely). Optical Density needs to be near zero at all other wavelengths if it is not to adversely affect your colour vision. And the lens needs to be a good optical flat or ground to same prescription as your spectacles.
I am not a pilot but I do know a bit about optics. I suggest it would be good to consult with aviation medicine specialists (your employers'?) before wearing l@ser filters.
And of course I agree with the sentiments expressed to the effect that offenders should be treated severely and ownership of high power l@sers (above 1mw?) restricted by licence.
Last edited by 911slf; 13th Jan 2012 at 08:39.
Reason: typo
If there is infrared l@ser light coming in, it will be substantially blocked by the windows, so it shouldn't be too dangerous in itself. You eyes will still reflexively track to the bright green source though, so the distraction is still there.
I'd suggest taking great care with l@ser goggles - LED warning lights, and flat-panel display phosphors/LCD-filtered lamps might be blocked at the same frequency, and so look weird/dark. If using goggles is a decision you take to increase safety from dazzle, then making sure that your colleague keeps their eyes strictly inside the cockpit, and pays attention to this possibilty while you're using them to look outside might be something to consider.
I think I agree entirely with the post from 911slf above on this.
Last edited by awblain; 13th Jan 2012 at 17:27.
Reason: No a-@ transformation in the title.
Optical Density needs to be near zero at all other wavelengths if it is not to adversely affect your colour vision.
Having worked on l@sers since 1978, unfortunately one of the considerations of wearing l@ser glasses/googles, is that it does reduce visible light transmission by up to 50%. There are some very good "high vis" filters around but the cost would no doubt be prohibitive. We use these filters within the optics of a slit lamp/microscope for the doctor to see the "target area" more clearly. But these are relatively quite small in diameter, approx 1-1.5cm.
Someone has probably mentioned this already in the thread but I am too lazy to read the whole thing...these l@ser "attacks" happen daily when approaching into GRU and GIG (sao paulo and rio de janeiro). The ATIS even warns of possible l@ser light aiming at the airplanes on approach. The first time it happened to me I reported it, and the tower replied like they already knew.
What surprises me tho, is that the l@ser they use is green (as opposed to the little red l@ser pointer I use to convince my cats to get back in the kitchen when it gets dark) and seems very powerful. Cheers.
Pardon an idiot MOP, but why aren't these attacks being prosecuted in the U.K. as attempted murder? I don't rate the chances of a helicopter pilot surviving being blinded very highly. And were the pilots of a passenger plane blinded, could they land the plane?
A lot of these l@sers are purchased by yobs on holiday and imported back into the UK from places where they are freely available - Bulgaria, Turkey, Cyprus, Spain and a few others.
Unfortunately UKBA cannot touch them because l@sers are not prohibited.
As soon as our MPs get their heads out of their expenses forms and pass the appropriate laws then you may see a drop in the availability of these things. - although I suspect that it may take a fatal crash before something is done....
