Virgin Atlantic flight from London to NY returns after pilot hurt in laser incident

[AreOut]

UPDATE: Virgin Atlantic VS25/VIR25B with pilot injured by lasr landed safely @ LHR. Declared 'Pan Pan' all the way.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbNYGHfXEAAaUUs.jpg:large

[etudiant]

Wow, that is very bad.
A laser capable of causing eye injury at a considerable distance is clearly a weapon. Are these higher power units not controlled as such in the UK?

[Airbubba]

Audio clip of the PAN call to Shannon giving estimated location of laser attack, states other pilot able to do PNF duties for the turnback to LHR:

http://airportwebcams.net/VS25B.mp3

FlightAware plot:

Virgin Atlantic (VS) #25 ? 14-Feb-2016 ? EGLL / LHR - KJFK ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VIR25/history/20160214/2005Z/EGLL/KJFK)

They were cleared direct STU, jettisoned fuel and when queried in a later ATC exchange said that they had swapped PF and PNF duties due to the medical situation.

[G0ULI]

So the aircraft was at 8000 feet climbing out of Heathrow. The vision out the front of the cockpit will be limited towards the ground, so the laser has to be a good three miles or more away. So the pilot has been looking at a laser that was probably five miles away and with the beam width spread to several feet. The blink reflex should have prevented exposure for more than a few fractions of a second even looking directly into the beam.

An unsettling experience with dark adapted vision, but unlikely to cause any permanent damage. This is an hysterical overreaction considering that the aircraft was already out past the west coast of Eire before turning back. I'm sure the pilot that was blinded by the laser may have felt some discomfort and eye irritation, but dumping thousands of pounds worth of fuel into the environment and inconveniencing hundreds of passengers strikes me as gross incompetence on behalf of the flight crew. There were two pilots, one apparently unaffected, the other still capable of assisting within the cockpit, why not continue the flight to the destination.

This all smacks of someone trying to prove a point or with an axe to grind.

I speak as someone who has experienced high intensity laser light being shone directly into the eye. An unpleasant experience, but I regained relatively normal vision within about ten minutes and had a sore, bloodshot eye for a couple of days afterwards.

Laser pointers and other devices for sale in the UK are supposed to be restricted to powers of less than 1mW, which is regarded as "eye safe" at any distance so long as you don't stare into the beam. Higher powered devices can be obtained over the internet from Far East suppliers or by repurposing common domestic items such as computer DVD drives. It is impossible to completely regulate such items. Customs and excise do regularly seize directly imported goods, but quite a lot get through the net.

[LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK]

Axe to grind or not,

The lunatics doing this need to be caught and made an example of in a very high profile manner with a lengthy sentence. The unaffected pilot may have been unsure of how long his fellow pilot was going to be temporarily blinded for and acted accordingly.

Not an easy decision to return and he has my respect :D

[deanm]

Goul: how can you possibly know the exact circumstances & what was happening in the cockpit?

I hope others don't condemn you as swiftly, harshly (& ignorantly) as you seem quite eager to do...

Dean

[goeasy]

And probably influenced by decisions from Ops control who dont want an aircraft stuck across the pond with only one pilot to fly it back.

I know nothing of laser exposure, but it is quite conceivable that after declaring such an incident, then CAA would see the medical as suspended until an official assessment has been completed....

Which may explain why the flight continued westward until a decision was mutually agreed upon. :ok:

[cockpitvisit]

I speak as someone who has experienced high intensity laser light being shone directly into the eye. An unpleasant experience, but I regained relatively normal vision within about ten minutes and had a sore, bloodshot eye for a couple of days afterwards.

You had this prior experience. The pilot probably didn't. How was he supposed to know his vision would likely recover during the remainder of the flight?

If his vision after the incident was not good enough to fly as PF, it would be kind if careless to continue over the pond.

[ACMS]

Wow easy to criticize from your expert arm chair.

So the flight had 4 Pilots for a REASON. Now they only have 3, how legal would it have been to continue? Also what if was the Captain that had the incapacitation?


Some things are not black and white mate.

Pull ya head in.

The crew did exactly what they were trained to do.

Edit:----sorry I misunderstood the crew was made up of 4 Pilots. Even then if it was only 2 crew then that's even more reason to turn back....

[Airbubba]

So the flight had 4 Pilots for a REASON.

Four pilots LHR-JFK?

I'm impressed... :)

[dixi188]

ACMS
Only likely to be two pilots on board as it's about 7.5 hours LHR to JFK

[RF4]

I am quite curious what symptoms the affected pilot was exhibiting. It can be pretty frightening if you have little knowledge of the eyes' reactions to laser exposure, or have not previously experienced it.

Do airlines carry on-board a copy of “Aviation Laser Exposure Self-Assessment”, which is published by the CAA ( or similar in other jurisdictions)? The ALESA card is available in hard copy, and can also be downloaded from CAA’s website. If downloaded, the Amsler Grid on the first page should be printed so it is 10 x 10 cm, or 4 x 4 in.

When you look at the Amsler grid, it gives a very good indication of eye damage.
I know more than one who have copy in their flight bag. Perhaps they did the Amsler test before the decision to turn back .

[crewmeal]

Gouli - not everyone's eyesight is the same even when checked by medial professionals. It's a known fact that lasers can damage your eyesight on a permanent basis. You would do well to remember this incident -

BA pilot's eye damaged by 'military' laser shone into cockpit at Heathrow | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/ba-pilots-eye-damaged-by-military-laser-shone-into-cockpit-at-heathrow)

[Kulu]

I'm interested in the nuts and bolts of G0ULI's analysis, mainly because I was wondering how someone on the ground could illuminate the interior of a cockpit at 8000 feet.

I'm not a pilot so not qualified to get into a conversation about the rights and wrongs of the crews actions (although as SLF will always be grateful for a cautious crew). Does the approximate distance and dispersion of the beam sound right - G0ULI - I'm not an expert in lasers either so not criticizing, just interested.

[Huck]

One eye out = crew incapacitation = Immediate diversion. Flight ops manual is not unclear about this.

Virgin owes this guy. I'd have landed overweight at Shannon....

[Tourist]

Virgin owes this guy. I'd have landed overweight at Shannon....

Then you'd be an idiot.

Divertion=reasonable response

Land overweight for a non-time critical event with reduced crew=prat

[Ian W]

Gouli has obviously not looked into a military l@ser probably a legal l@ser pointer. This had to be a military l@ser for two reasons first the power involved for what would have to be a minimum of 3 miles range. second the stability needed to keep it focused on the cockpit for a sufficient time.

One thing I would highlight is that there is a natural tendency at night to look directly at a light of any sort that 'attracts your attention'. Not a good idea with a l@ser but difficult to avoid.

[Tourist]

The following is from the main thread about laser attacks and is very interesting.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/349414-l-ser-attacks-aircraft-41.html#post9255596


Lasers


Not sure if this has been posted before. Stumbled across this whilst researching topic for a flight safety brief. Pretty sobering final para.

From laserpointersafety.com

UK: Medical report on commercial pilot injured by blue l@ser at 1300 feet
Jan 24 2016
The journal Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance has published a paper entitled “Blue l@ser Induced Retinal Injury in a Commercial Pilot at 1300 ft”. The case report is as follows:

“An airline pilot presented to our department complaining of a blind spot in the upper left area of his visual field in the right eye (right supero-nasal scotoma) following exposure to a l@ser beam while performing a landing maneuver of a commercial aircraft. At around 1300 ft (396 m), a blue l@ser beam from the ground directly entered his right eye, with immediate flash blindness and pain. Spectral domain ocular coherence tomography highlighted a localized area of photoreceptor disruption corresponding to a well demarcated area of hypofluorescence on fundus autofluorescence, representing a focal outer retinal l@ser injury. Fundus examination a fortnight later revealed a clinically identifiable lesion in the pilot’s right eye commensurate with a retinal-laser burn.”

The paper said the pilot’s symptoms “fully resolved 2 wk later” and that there was no “deficit in visual function.”

The l@ser exposure happened at a “busy international airport within the United Kingdom.” According to the authors, “To the best of our knowledge this is the first documented case report of a likely retinal l@ser injury to a pilot during flight from a l@ser on the ground.” They believe the blue l@ser had a “radiant power of several watts and potentially could have led to permanent loss of central vision in the pilot’s right eye had the fovea, the area of retina responsible for high acuity vision, been involved.”

The case was first publicly announced November 23 2015 by the general secretary of the British Air Line Pilot’s Association (BALPA). He said it occurred in the spring of 2015.

From Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, Vol. 87, No. 1, January 2016. Full text available here for purchase. Gosling DB, O’Hagan JB, Quhill FM. Blue l@ser induced retinal injury in a commercial pilot at 1300 ft. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016; 87(1):69–70.

Analysis from LaserPointerSafety.com

Summary - What was the l@ser’s power?

Based on the data provided, it would have taken an exceptionally strong l@ser to even have a 50/50 chance of causing an eye injury at 1300 ft. We calculate such a l@ser would be well over 5 watts and possibly 30 or more watts. This is a conservative estimate. It assumes the l@ser and eye were not moving fast relative to each other — unlikely for a handheld l@ser aimed at a moving aircraft. It also assumes a relatively tight beam, and that the l@ser-to-aircraft distance was 1300 ft when it may well have been longer.

As of 2015, the highest power handheld visible l@sers sold on the Internet are roughly 3 watts. Sometimes handheld l@sers are advertised with greater powers, such as 5 or 10 watts, but the claimed power may be grossly incorrect. For example, in 2014 LaserPointerSafety.com purchased a “5 watt” handheld l@ser that was actually about 50 milliwatts, or 1/100th of the claimed power.

We believe one of the following scenarios is what happened:
1) The injury was a very unlucky one; the pilot just happened to experience a statistically unlikely injury that could be caused by a relatively low 3-5 watt handheld consumer l@ser
2) A higher powered l@ser in the range 5 to 30+ watts was used, possibly not handheld (e.g., an AC-powered general purpose l@ser). If so, this may have been a deliberate attempt to cause damage.
3) The injury, or change to the retina, was less damaging (not as serious) compared to the injuries used to determine basic l@ser safety concepts such as the Maximum Permissible Exposure and the Nominal Ocular Hazard distance. The doctors were able to detect subtle retinal changes that, under previous MPE/NOHD studies, might not even be perceived as injuries or damage.

Detailed analysis

The report is not clear on whether the aircraft altitude was 1300 ft, or whether the l@ser-to-aircraft distance was calculated to be 1300 ft. If the former, there would be an additional horizontal distance so the l@ser could enter the cockpit window (e.g., it did not come 1300 ft straight up through the bottom of the aircraft).

For purposes of this discussion we will be conservative and say the l@ser-to-aircraft distance was 1300 ft.

One of the best-known consumer handheld blue l@sers is the Wicked l@sers S3 Arctic, introduced in 2010. It is called a “1-watt” l@ser but has an actual output around 750 milliwatts (3/4 watt). The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance of this l@ser, with a 1 milliradian divergence, is 635 feet. This means that beyond 635 feet, there is a “vanishingly small” chance of l@ser exposure causing a minimally detectable change to the eye, under laboratory conditions when the eye and the l@ser are held in fixed positions relative to each other.

So a S3 Arctic could not have caused the injury at 1300 ft. This is more than twice the “safe” NOHD distance.

A more powerful l@ser with an output of 3.1 watts and 1 mrad divergence would have an NOHD of 1291 ft. It is possible that an exposure from a 3.1 watt l@ser could have caused an injury, when the eye and the l@ser are held in fixed positions relative to each other.

However, note that the NOHD has a built-in “reduction factor” or “safety factor”. This means that the chance of injury, if someone is at or just within the NOHD, is still very, very small.

At roughly 1/3 of the NOHD, the chance of injury increases to 50%. Specifically, at 0.316 times the NOHD, there is a 50/50 chance of a l@ser exposure causing a minimally detectable change to the eye, under laboratory conditions when the eye and l@ser are held in fixed positions relative to each other. So what we are looking for is the power of a l@ser that has an NOHD of 4108 ft. (This is because 1300 ft would be at the 0.316x “50/50” point.)

A l@ser with an output of 32 watts and 1 mrad divergence fits this. That means there is a 50/50 chance that a 32 watt/1 mrad l@ser exposure under laboratory conditions could have caused a minimally detectable injury to an eye that is 1300 ft. away.

If the divergence was less — a tighter beam — then the overall l@ser power could be lower as well. This is because a tighter beam will have greater power density at a distance than the same power spread out in a wider beam. Note however, that the higher the power output of a l@ser, the harder it is to make a tight beam. Adding a focusing lens on the front of the l@ser is not significant at long distances. So it is likely that a multi-watt relatively inexpensive consumer l@ser would have a beam of 1 milliradian divergence or wider.

At 8 watts and a tight 0.5 mrad divergence, there would be a 50/50 chance that a l@ser exposure under laboratory conditions could have caused a minimally detectable injury to an eye that is 1300 ft. away. Again, 8 watts at 0.5 mrad is exceptionally tight for a consumer l@ser.

Second analysis

LaserPointerSafety.com received a note from a l@ser safety expert who read the above.

This person wrote “Some of the more important factors are that the aircraft is obviously not stationary, and that the 1300 foot range (as a minimum) is still a very distant target. There is doubtless attenuation in the windscreen, so this even without considering the ED50, for this exposure to turn into a definite injury is highly improbable.”

The expert’s “best guess” was that the exposure was 2-3 orders of magnitude above the MPE “to hope to overcome the ameliorating factors (movement, windscreen, atmospheric effects, etc).” This means that the exposure was 100 to 1000 times above the Maximum Permissible Exposure. Recall that the MPE is the highest irradiance at which injury is unlikely. For a 1/4 second exposure that would be 2.54 milliwatts per square centimeter. So the expert’s best guess is that the actual irradiance, to cause the stated injury, would be around 254 to 2540 mW/cm².

Earlier we established that a l@ser with an output of 3.1 watts and 1 mrad divergence would have an NOHD of 1291. Another way of saying this is that a 3.1 watt, 1 mrad l@ser beam would be just at the Maximum Permissible Exposure, at the aircraft windscreen.

What this expert is now guessing is that the l@ser was 100 to 1000 times more powerful, or around 310 to 3100 watts. For a visible blue l@ser, this is exceptionally powerful. It would not be a consumer-type handheld l@ser.

If true — if a blue l@ser beam was able to cause the injury described in the paper — then it must have been a l@ser with special characteristics such as high power and tripod tracking, which is unlike almost all other reports of consumer l@ser misuse.

[RealUlli]

I seem to recall a recent thread about a pilot who had eye trouble for a couple of days after a laser incident. I think that also was in London.

In that thread, someone argued that due to beam divergence, dispersion and attenuation of the beam, the laser either had to be really powerful (several watts!) or it just couldn't have happened as described.

Is it possible there's someone out there who has a *REALLY* powerful laser (strong enough to cut through metal at short distances) who is targeting planes?

If so, that someone really needs to be apprehended and very publicly trialled - pay for all the damages and probably go to jail for a while. This also needs to be publicised (spelling?) quite well so others don't follow his example.

I still think it is still not perceived as dangerous by most of the population, they more likely go like "Gee, look how far this shines, I wonder if I can get a reflection off that aircraft over there". Unfortunately, planes are about the farthest object a city dweller can see without leaving home and has a chance to reflect something off of.

Quite possibly, that idiot got a new toy, really powerful, and was showing off to a mate, "look, I can make that aircraft over there light up"... :ugh:

Edit: Tourist beat me to it - he found the post I was referring to. :-)

[wiggy]

GOULI

For all we/I know they may have been reduced to pseudo single pilots ops at the beginning of a longish sector heading into complex airspace/non-trivial airport.

The industry advice after an incident is to get medical attention/opinion after landing. That might mean grounding for further checks. If that had happened in JFK it gives Virgin crewing problems for the reciprocal sector.

[172driver]

First off - wish the pilot a full and speedy recovery.

What I don't quite get here is:
- a/c at 8000ft
- climbing, so deck angle tilted upwards (unless they were held level by ATC)

How does a laser beam get into the cockpit?

Only thing I can think of is through the side window. Could even have triggered the pilot in question to look out after seeing some strange light in peripheral vision.

In any case, this must have been an exceptionally powerful laser - let's hope whoever did this is caught asap and dealt with accordingly.

[beardy]

Perhaps, in the spirit of good problem solving, they took advice from all possible relevant well informed sources including Medlink or similar (or even PPRuNe armchair experts) before coming to the best solution.

[wanabee777]

When we used to layover in Shanghai, while having dinner at a table outside near the sidewalk, street urchins would come by and try to sell us powerful green_lasers which they proudly demonstrated by lighting a match with.

Scary stuff...

[seen_the_box]

I'm sure the pilot that was blinded by the l@ser may have felt some discomfort and eye irritation, but dumping thousands of pounds worth of fuel into the environment and inconveniencing hundreds of passengers strikes me as gross incompetence on behalf of the flight crew.

Well this certainly ranks as one of the most moronic posts I've ever read on PPRUNE. One pilot incapacitated, even only partially, is a very good reason to stick it on the ground somewhere as far as I'm concerned. To start throwing around accusations of 'gross incompetence' is nothing short of jaw dropping.

[Mikehotel152]

The pilot did not mention a third crew-member when asked by ATC whether he was single-pilot, he simply said that the injured crew-member was fit to perform his monitoring duties.

That's a little odd. In my opinion, if there are only two pilots available and one is unfit to be pilot flying by virtue of an injury, that is a single-pilot operation, no matter how much 'assistance' the injured pilot could give in normal operations.

In our airline, if a pilot were to pass out but recover, apparently fully fit to continue, a Mayday and diversion would still be required - just in case.

Naturally, I know what I'd do and I am conscious of what common-sense dictates in these circumstances, but rules is rules...

[beardy]

Permanently or temporarily incapacitated? To leap to either conclusion without expert knowledge may not be particularly wise. Perhaps an early landing may not have been the best course of action when time may have led to recovery, I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not an expert in this matter. Although, having been illuminated by a laser at night on approach into Manchester (with no serious affect) I did some amateur research into the topic.

[RHS]

I find all these posts writing off the crew as totally disgusting. You don't get to fly UK airliners, never mind large UK airliners by chance. If the pilot was hit by a laser, bad enough that your eye is hurting and you can no longer carry out your duties then you are incapacitated. The QRH on the aircraft I fly says to declare an emergency immediately for a pilot Incap.

So returning to LHR, instead of taking an A340 across the Atlantic and in to JFK seems a hugely appropriate decision. I'm sure one taken after speaking to ops and some Medlink equivalent.

For those calling the crew incompetent or criticising their decision to not continue to JFK, unless you were on the aircraft, directly involved in the decision making process, take yourself back to the shed armchair to continue working on the airfix kit.

[scoobydoo44]

Gouli

Not sure it's your place to make assumptions on whether the crew turned back because they had an axe to grind ! I'm assuming they carried out a DRA which resulted in them turning back possibly based on the logic that if the other pilot fell ill they could possibly have problems further into the flight . Love it when so called experts start spouting utter rubbish about professional flight crew on here

[Wirbelsturm]

The laser doesn't need to be shone in from the front, the humans natural reaction when catching a light source in the peripheral vision is to glance toward the source of the light. Most laser reports have the light source to the left or right of track.

A laser pointer won't cause damage to the eye given those distances as the coherence of the beam would be severely degraded by both atmospheric effects and distance. It would just be a distraction and a dazzle.

Unfortunately there has been an explosion in the numbers of high powered lasers on the market, readily available. Not only are some of these things between 100-1000 times more powerful than what is legally allowed in the UK the beam intensity and spread are hardly affected at such distances.

These things can be weapons.

Many years ago I was dazzled by a strong light source from a Chinese Destroyer in the South China Sea. It was a long discussion back at base as to whether or not the act by the ship was to be considered a hostile act.

Personally I think the crew made the correct decision in returning to home base if the affected crew member felt he was capable enough of operating the PNF duties for the relatively short duration of the return flight.

[Sallyann1234]

This is an hysterical overreaction considering that the aircraft was already out past the west coast of Eire before turning back. The only hysterical overreaction here is your own post, GOULI.
The flight continued long enough for the pilots to properly assess the extent of the injury, and in discussion with VA Operations, the implications of carrying on.
Fortunately your comfortable armchair speculation had no part in those decisions.

[Capot]

And probably influenced by decisions from Ops control who dont want an aircraft stuck across the pond with only one pilot to fly it back.Just on that small point; are you suggesting that picking up a replacement pilot for the onward/return flight from JFK would be a good enough reason for a turnback, fuel dumping, and the consequences such as massive delay, crew perhaps out of hours, etc etc, on its own?

[IcePack]

Having a green/red blob in front of your vision, still apparent after a few mins, is very disconcerting and certainly makes you wonder if any permanent damage has been done. Thoughts of loss of licence livelihood etc, not the best idea to continue. Medlink would have had an input too e.g. give it 10 mins & see (excuse pun) if impairment is still noticeable.
As for looking out the window, um you don;t have to lean over and look down to see the ground. A laser will easily shine into the cockpit from the side, the side screens are quite big.
imho the crew didn't have much choice than to return & get medical help.
What wattage was the laser then ? Difficult to tell from an airliner cockpit.

[wiggy]

are you suggesting that picking up a replacement pilot for the onward/return flight from JFK would be a good enough reason for a turnback,


Without commenting specifically on the Virgin incident

At least one operator/authority has a rule that a reduction of the flight crew compliment to below the basic level ( e.g from 2 to 1).

1. Is treated as an emergency.
2. Requires a PAN call.
3. Is usually a "land as soon as is safely possible at a suitable airfield" (taking into account that it might be safer if operating single pilot to divert into a familiar airfield rather than a nearer unfamiliar airfield.)

Commercial considerations don't enter into it.

Hope that helps.

[Fortissimo]

For those people doubting whether lasers are powerful enough to do you damage, it is possible to buy 3-5W lasers over the web and there is very little to stop them being imported into the UK or elsewhere. The limit here is 1mW (some countries allow 5mW) but the problem is quality at build. Just because it says 1mW on the tin does not mean it only produces 1mW - a pointer tested after it caused a permanent retinal burn to a child came in at 70mW. A 5W laser will be visible from 30+ nautical miles.

As for injury or otherwise, Fahd Quhill, the consultant ophthalmologist who wrote the article referred to in Tourist's post, has photographs of the retina of the pilot injured at LHR which show a clear laser burn. He believes the pilot was telling the truth about how he came to be injured and I don't understand why anyone would doubt him either.

For reference, the police will treat laser dazzle as an injury, albeit a temporary one, which makes the crime ABH. A permanent injury would be classed as GBH. Regardless, the laser attack was an offence under the ANO. The other thing people might want to know about laser injuries is that the disruption to vision will be immediate but can get worse in the following minutes, and it can also be some time before it becomes apparent the effects of (eg) dazzle are taking longer to fade (individuals differ in their response). The same is true of pain/discomfort from an eye injury. And if you have ever had an eye injury you will know that it is very distracting.

I would have made the same decision as the VAA captain - but then I am sat in my armchair with plenty of hindsight and both eyes working.

[Digitalis]

Just to let you know that the captain of that flight is a past moderator of this forum and has read this thread, and is fascinated that some people seem to have a supernatural ability to second-guess his actions with the certainty that they are right and he is wrong. A rendezvous behind a bike shed of his choice has been suggested...

[Capt Claret]

I want internet acces in the aeroplanes I fly, so that in the event of an abnormal, I can get advice before I make a wrong decision! :ugh: :rolleyes: :zzz:

[crippen]

Sky news is reporting the incident took place 'shortly after take off'.





If laser damage to the eye is anything like arc eye from welding,the effects grow after a while.from personal experience!!!

[Sallyann1234]

A rendezvous behind a bike shed of his choice has been suggested...
Certainly, an apology is due from the person concerned.

[Hotel Tango]

The only qualifications G0ULI has is a lapsed PPL. Not only does he spout off a complete load of rubbish based on ZERO knowledge (hence the zero in his user name) but comes close to committing slander in the process!

[Bull at a Gate]

It's not close to slander at all. What G0uli said was definitely slander! Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

[pax britanica]

Froma regular pax point of view I can only commend the attide of the crew and the airline . Assuming two pilots as is normal to JFK and one has impaired vision suddenly i would prefer a return to LHR to heading off intot he unknown with JFK winter weather and a dozen other unopredicatble possibilities with only one pilot comfortable with what they can actually see. Quite astonished at the few critical psots and opinions .

It does seem odd about the 'penetration into the cockpit froma ground based laser assuming the plane is climbing in spite of SE England population density there are alot of uninhabiited areas west of LHR quite heavily wooded too and if the laser is coloured it may have just caught the unfiortunate pilots attention and the automatic 'look at the light response' caused the problem . Also that is an area where aaircraft on Compton depatures turn further to the west than the inital track from Heathrow and that could mean it waqs in a bit of a right bank whan it happened which could explain how the pilot saw it in the first place.

i would have thought/hoped there had been enough publicity about the dangers of this to stop even hardened idiots doing it but it seems sadly not.

[Phileas Fogg]

It's not close to slander at all. What G0uli said was definitely slander! Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

The written word is "libel", it is the spoken word that is "slander".

Trust me, I'm no lawyer :)

[wiggy]

pax b

It might not even need bank.

It does seem odd about the 'penetration into the cockpit froma ground based laser assuming the plane is climbing

Not really , many types have a reasonably depressed sight line available through the side windows. Chuck in a bit of the automatic 'look at the light response' and I can easily see (sorry) how the incident could have happened.

[mickjoebill]

I'm curious that no passengers were affected in this incident, nor apparently in other incidences.

Either the beam was narrow and tracked the cockpit area with very high precision or the passengers, whose view was not obscured by the wing, were not looking out the window nor drawn to the surface of the window being illuminated.

The narrower the beam the more precision or luck needed to keep the beam from illuminating the passenger cabin.


Mickjoebill

[Tourist]

There is something not right about these incidents. The sort of hand-held lasers that you can buy in the middle east just should not cause the sort of incidents we are seeing.
These videos are of helicopters over Tarir square.
They flew or hovered repeatedly over the crowd for extended periods and had literally thousands of lasers directed at them including green and blue lasers.
They did not lose the ability to see despite repeated exposure at a range far closer than the airliner hits.
This mass laser exposure is commonly directed at politicians and public speakers in many parts of the world also.

Afagq8PjpM

OeMMKmC5OOo

I worry that this might be something more serious?

[ImageGear]

As an ex-pilot and a more frequent SLF, I have experienced being laser scanned sitting in seat 3a from a source in the North Bracknell area. I can tell you that even knowing the risks, I was attempting to shield my eyes, while trying to identify the location between scans. In my case while not painful, I experienced a slight green "aura" for a few seconds afterwards.

I can verify that from a pilot's perspective, you would be incapacitated in the full meaning of the word, until vision was regained. There is also an element of disorientation for the duration of the experience.

I am sure that many SLF's must have experienced the effects of L%s%rs and tried to report it without success. (It's not something that airlines would want to publicise.)

imagegear

[funfly]

It does seem that it was something more than a 'hobby' l@ser gun here. Of course the pilot was totally correct (and responsible) in his actions.

FF

P.S. not all lapsed PPLs are w@nkers. In my case I have reached an age where my own knowledge is unlimited and my opinions always totally correct ;)

[MATELO]

From July 2012

The eye damage that a JetBlue pilot suffered after two green laser beams were reportedly shined into a New York-bound airplane flying at 5,000 feet this week happens because the lens of the eye focuses light onto the retina, and the heat energy is enough to burn the eye, expert say.

When light enters the eye, it is focused by the lens on the retina at the back of the eye, explained Dr. Neil Bressler, an ophthalmologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The damage happens when the focused light is too strong or lasts for too long, and heats the part of the retina that contains pigment, or color.

"That pigment absorbs the light just like dark clothing, and just like dark clothing radiates, it radiates heat," Bressler said.

The heat can burn the eye and permanently damage the retina. If the laser light is brief or weak, it may not produce the same heat or long-lasting damage, but instead could create a small after-image, which is a bright spot that prevents normal vision.

This is similar to what happens when you stare at a bright light for too long — you continue to see a bright spot for a few seconds after looking away, because "it takes the retina time to recover, to be able to see again," Bressler said.

But the thermal damage could also cause a permanent blank spot, he said, which is impossible to treat and would require retina replacement, he said. That type of damage is very rare, however, and Bressler said that he had mainly seen it in people who've been in industrial accidents.

Light from lasers maintains its energy even over long distances. The extent of the eye damage that occurs depends on the strength of the laser, the distance from the laser and length of exposure.

Last year, lasers above a certain strength were outlawed in the U.S. in an attempt to limit this kind of harm.

In the case of the JetBlue pilot, officials with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Aviation Administration said they are searching for the person who shined the lasers into the plane’s cockpit, according to news reports.

The plane landed safely.

Pass it on: Lasers damage the eye by heating up the retina, and can cause permanent damage.

Lasers Can Cause Permanent Eye Damage | Retina Damage (http://www.livescience.com/21707-lasers-eye-damage.html)

[Tourist]

MATELO

None of that is new. We know that eyes focus light, that is why we don't look at the sun yet sun does not burn our skin unless we sit in direct sunlight for an extended time.

What that does not say is how come lasers are blinding pilots?
There are a million lasers in the hands of idiot kids all over the world shining them at each other all the time, yet the worlds casualty departments are not overrun by blind kids, or even kids with itchy eyes etc.

[glad rag]

Always wondered what triggered the nighttime blind closing frenzy guess I've just.found out why..

I can only add that my comtempt is split evenly between those who carry out these wanton acts and those who would second guess the flightcrews decisions..

[Capot]

Wiggy, yes, I know all that. What I was commenting on was the poster's apparent belief that an airline would nip back to base from well into a sector solely, repeat solely, to collect a pilot to replace a crew member on the next flight from the destination. Of course it's mandatory to divert/RTB if a member of the flight deck operating crew is incapacitated or likely to become so during a flight. At least I have always believed it is.

[paully]

It would seem our er `friend`is more used to Jet Blast..in the middle of the night he probably thought he still was :}

On a serious note I hope the injured First Officer makes a swift recovery and gets back to work. The Captain was utterly professional and did everything right imho..As a human being, damn the inconvenience, getting someone medical attention is far more important..He has reinforced safety first and done his company proud :D

[Gertrude the Wombat]

As a human being, damn the inconvenience, getting someone medical attention is far more important..
Yes. I would have every sympathy with a pilot with a suspected eye injury wanting to get to hospital just as quickly as physically possible, and I would expect the system to deliver this.

[MATELO]

Tourist

None of that is new.

Hence the date from 4 years ago.

Just highlighting the apparent similarities for those who didn't know.

[G0ULI]

Professional flight crew make decisions based on compliance with corporate policies and international safety standards. If company policy dictates that an aircraft should land if a pilot has been dazzled by a laser, then that is what the crew need to do.

If the circumstances of this incident are as has been reported then several things don't make sense.

The aircraft was roughly a mile above the ground and allowing for the beam direction to enter the cockpit through a side window at a reasonable angle, the ground location would need to be a couple of miles to the side of the aircraft.

Lasers capable of causing eye damage while being focused on the cockpit area of a rapidly moving aircraft at a range of three or more miles are not consumer items bought off the internet.

The pilots apparently did not immediately report the incident to Heathrow or a UK based air traffic control.

Having declared an emegency, the aircraft dumped fuel and flew back to Heathrow rather than land at Shannon where the pilot could have received more immediate medical assistance.

I was under the impression that larger aircraft carried two pilots so that in event of one pilot becoming incapacitated, the other would be capable of flying the aircraft to its destination, albeit with a reduced level of safety. Modern aircraft are complex, but we are frequently told that the pilots only hand fly aircraft at take off and landing. It isn't as if this flight would have been hand flown across the Atlantic by a single pilot.

I wasn't there on board the aircraft, so whatever decisions the flight crew made were right for them, at the time. The aircraft landed safely and the passengers were uninjured.

Ultra high powered lasers used for cutting materials operate outside the human visual range, so are unlikely to have featured in this incident. Visual spectrum lasers with powers of up to 50 watts are used in arena stage shows and outdoor displays. One of these would certainly cause a distraction if pointed in your direction and would be visible for many miles. These are rather expensive and unlikely to be in private ownership. Anyone legally possessing such a device would be unlikely to deliberately target an aircraft with it in my opinion. Such an act would be tantamount to an act of war and there is a Geneva Convention banning the use of lasers to blind enemy combatants (and presumably civilians).

Hopefully the culprit will be swiftly located and dealt with in an appropriate manner.

The reporting also suggests that the aircraft was deliberately targetted and didn't just happen to fly through a fixed beam being used for display or star location purposes. Such a fixed beam would only have caused a brief flash in the cockpit and would have been unlikely to have caused the disruption it did. So making this most likely a deliberate act.

The crew took the decisions they did in the light of their circumstances at the time and it all ended safely, so they deserve congratulations for that. I sincerely hope that the affected pilot recovers swiftly from the effects of this incident and that it has no affect on his medical status to fly.

With the benefit of hindsight, you can be right all the time. :rolleyes: :ugh:

[pilotmike]

@Digitalis Just to let you know that the captain of that flight is a past moderator of this forum and has read this thread

So it can't be all bad then... if he's reading. Gets coat...

[avionimc]

If a beam is pointed at the aircraft, how should the pilot react?
What is the best way for the pilot to avoid eye damage?
Move the head, look elsewhere, how quick of a reaction is needed?
Is there a recommended procedure? By day, or night time?
Thanks,

[wiggy]

I was under the impression that larger aircraft carried two pilots so that in event of one pilot becoming incapacitated, the other would be capable of flying the aircraft to its destination......

:ugh: :ugh:

Sorry but if you think it would have been OK to carry on over the Atlantic you've got a very simplistic view of what goes on the flight deck.

Hypothetically lets say you're minutes into a 6-7 hour sector and you've gone from 2 up front to 1, you've not even begun to scratch the surface of the all the routine issues/clearances that need a double check by a second pilot, such as level changes/speed changes/ the Atlantic route clearance /onward route clearance at the far end... and at the other end the fun and games going into JFK. Chuck in any other odd ball en-route (technical problem/passenger problem) and you would be really up against it.

Could you do it mechanically - probably.
Would the authorities approve? No.
Would it be sensible? IMHO No.

....

[MATELO]

I was under the impression that larger aircraft carried two pilots so that in event of one pilot becoming incapacitated, the other would be capable of flying the aircraft to its destination, albeit with a reduced level of safety. Modern aircraft are complex, but we are frequently told that the pilots only hand fly aircraft at take off and landing. It isn't as if this flight would have been hand flown across the Atlantic by a single pilot.


Indeed they can, however, I suspect this is more to do with "seeking medical attention" for the affected person, rather than flying "solo" across the pond.

[The Ancient Geek]

This thread is a tad on the silly side - if you feel that your ability to operate the aircraft safely has been compromised then you ARE incapacitated and your only option (in the absence of a spare crew) is to land as soon as is safely possible.
There is obviously room for interpretation; the degree of incapacitation, the probability of the condition worsening and such things as familiarity with the chosen airfield are among the factors to consider along with the urgency of obtaining medical treatment.
Continueing a long haul flight is NOT an option.

[Flying Lawyer]

G0ULI

If that was intended to be an apology, then it was certainly required.

Whether a consequence of naivety or arrogance or both, it is astonishing that a "lapsed PPL", who has previously conceded (when challenged in the Rotorheads forum) that he is "a fixed wing pilot of very limited experience", should not only have challenged an airline Captain's decision to turn back but go on to describe it very offensively as "an hysterical overreaction" and "gross incompetence on behalf of the flight crew."

Your attitude, posted previously, is that such incidents have been: "sensationalised by the press and exaggerated by the victims in many instances."A change in that attitude is long overdue.
Why bother to read PPRuNe if you aren't prepared to learn?


PhileasThe written word is "libel", it is the spoken word that is "slander".In general terms that is correct. Most commonly, libel tends to be written, broadcast or published online.
I hope that, in addition to the error you spotted, Bull Trust me I'm a lawyer Gate from Australia was referring to English law.
Australia abolished the distinction between slander and libel more than 10 years ago. ;)

.

[GoldwingSpain]

Having had a normal laser shone into my eyes for a fraction of a second I can say it was a horrible experience and the effect lasted hours.

Though in UK the power is supposed to be limited to 1mW, it does not take long to find very high power lasers with burning capability online.

I think the decision to turn back was wise.

[severidian]

After similar problems in Australia lasers with power >1mW were basically banned.

[Sallyann1234]

GOULI
I wasn't there on board the aircraft, so whatever decisions the flight crew made were right for them, at the time. The aircraft landed safely and the passengers were uninjured. That doesn't sound much like an apology to the Captain of that flight. Do you now withdraw your offensive comments about this very experienced senior officer?

This is an hysterical overreaction considering that the aircraft was already out past the west coast of Eire before turning back. I'm sure the pilot that was blinded by the l@ser may have felt some discomfort and eye irritation, but dumping thousands of pounds worth of fuel into the environment and inconveniencing hundreds of passengers strikes me as gross incompetence on behalf of the flight crew.

[tomahawk_pa38]

I'm no airline pilot but have the greatest respect for those of you who are and have to make these decisions quickly. Going on from what Wiggy says, I remember an AAIB report from a few years ago involving a flight en route from the States to the UK. Shortly after takeoff the first officer felt unwell with a headache and talk a tablet out of his pocket (thinking it was parcetomol) only find out soon after that it was Co-proximol type drug which made him ill. The captain decided to press on and then almost landed on the worng runway at EGKK due to a late runway change and the presure of work on him that it caused. For those interested it was June 1997
AAIB Bulletin No: 6/97 Ref: EW/G96/12/1 Category: 1.1

[Fortissimo]

Please check your PMs.

[Interested Passenger]

purely from a passengers point of view, if I knew that just after take off, with 7 odd hours of flight ahead, one of the pilots was unwell/injured/incapacitated, I would be more than happy for us to return to the safety of the departure airport, for everyone's safety.

If nothing unforeseen goes wrong then I am sure the remaining pilot could get us there, but that's the trouble with the unforeseen.

Is it any different in safety terms to a twin engine aircraft loosing an engine on take off? You wouldn't carry on over the Atlantic, even though it could probably get there.

(I know this one has 4)

[G0ULI]

Sallyann1234 et al

It is a shame that having an opinion has upset so many people.

Of course the pilots took the most reasonable and safest course of action in the light of their company policy, international regulations and for the safety of the aircraft and passengers.

Sitting safely on the ground, the actions they took did not make sense to me, but I now see the reasoning behind it. I meant no personal insult to the flight crew but was trying to make a point about having moved into a culture where every incident in flight is now seen as a potential major safety issue. Perhaps it is for the best that we have moved on from the press on regardless attitudes of the past.

I have used lasers on a regular basis since the late 1960s, so I am very aware of the dangers they pose and the injuries they can cause. Retinal damage from a laser is instant and irreversible. Because the beam is focused by the lens in the eye, generally the retinal damage is restricted to a few cells, but repeated exposure will cause significant deterioration in vision. When only a small area of the retina is affected, the body compensates for the damage and apparently normal vision is restored although the damage remains. The same mechanism allows us to ignore the blind spot where the retinal nerves enter the eye for most tasks.

As stated above I acknowledge that the flight crew acted in accordance with procedures and I accept that my knowledge was lacking in this respect.

Hopefully this incident will lead to an improvement in flight safety through the culprit being found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law as a deterrent to other idiots who think lighting up an aircraft at night is a fun thing to do.

[Fortissimo]

Tourist (#46), I don't think you can draw conclusions from the Egypt experience - that crew may well have been using laser goggles or glasses, but we don't know.

The majority of laser devices are Class 1/low power and will not do damage unless there is prolonged exposure. The problem comes with the devices that are either not as advertised or actually deliver the claimed power output. Any laser capable of bursting a balloon or lighting a match (a common sales claim) is capable of producing irreparable eye damage; what sort of damage will depend on whether you look directly at the beam or it enters your eye at an 'off-boresight' angle.

There have been plenty of incidents of eye damage to children, not all of it serious but not all of it reported or treated either. It also depends where in the world you live. A&E is not full of laser casualties, true, but that is not the same as knowing there are no casualties. According to one report I read (from an NHS consultant), there were 9 youngsters in Sheffield with life-changing eye injuries in 2013 alone. There will be more.

In the meantime we need to stop people having a go at aircraft. Googles and dyes in windscreens are just about OK as defences but some of them alter depth perception, some make elements of PFDs hard to read, and all of them notch out chunks of the red and green wavelengths. LEDs have tighter radiant bandwidth and are becoming much more common because they are brighter and cheaper to run than conventional incandescent lamps, but the downside is less spectrum to spill around the notched wavelengths produced by goggles/glasses.

The next step needs to be having lasers added to the offensive weapons list, which would give police officers the stop and search powers they need to tackle this problem.

[Wirbelsturm]

Wicked Lasers | Blue, Red, Green Laser Pointers (http://www.wickedlasers.com/)

Just to show what can be purchased around the world and these aren't the worst by a long way. Just look in the tech market of Shanghai for some of the 'under the counter' stuff. :ugh:

As far as 'decision making' goes any flight crew incapacitation requires a diversion. The time frame and decision making processes will obviously vary with the extent of the injury etc.

The MINIMUM number of crew for operation of a trans atlantic passenger jet is two. Any reduction below the minimum requires an emergency declaration and a diversion. If that diversion is back to the departure airfield then so be it.

To continue over the pond with below minimum crew would be illegal as well as not a bit stupid. If the crew member felt that their ability to carry out their assigned tasks as PF or PM had been degraded by the incident, irrespective of the time frame, severity or damage, then the aircraft is operating below minimum crew and the absolutely correct command decisions were taken.

It's very easy to hypothesize when you are not conversant with the rules and regs of the ANO but perhaps it would be best not to wrap that lack of knowledge up in an arm chair warrior irrelevant post. :E

Just my thoughts

[Loose rivets]

Quick notes from a retired pilot:

See Richard Feynman's report on looking at the first atomic explosion. He was confident he could look right at it through a lorry wind-shield. This confidence came from knowing about photons converting their energy to and fro as they pass glass molecules. However, he ended up throwing himself on the floor of the cab with a huge mauve blotch on his vision.

Despite what we learn in physics, there seems to be no doubt eyes can be damaged from light that has passed through glass. Why?

100 yeas or so ago scientist learned roughly how the retina worked. Only recently have we learned that the layer on the front surface of the retina, thought to be an evolutionary mistake, is a breathtakingly complex neural mechanism. The point being here is the separation of blue (higher frequency) light and the more readily used red and green. The way in which the eye might be affected is not only based on the energy, but the fact that, that colour energy is treated rather differently. This activity in the front surface may well be likened to the brain's neural processing and it's not difficult to imagine just how distressing an attack on that mechanism could be even before the rods and cones are affected.

We have to consider the psychology of the crew-member's reaction to a disruption in their sight. Sitting here a few days ago after retinal eye surgery, I can tell you there were times when I felt like tearing the patch off in moments of sheer panic. You'd have to be insensitive to the point of stupidity not to be asking yourself if your sight would return, or if you'd been permanently blinded. To carry on, making decisions, the right decisions in this case, all while these things are rolling around in the back of your mind takes a lot of guts.

It happens also that I spent a lot of time writing about Classical Migraine on the medical forum. I learned a great deal about the fear in aircrew of sudden patches of blindness.

When you think about it, a large aircraft with perhaps just four tiny tissue-thin organs as the only contact with its systems and the outside world has always has been incredibly vulnerable. There is no room in this industry for mischievous or even malicious disruption of these vital surfaces. There's no need I'm sure, to extrapolate to the worst scenario.

[Out Of Trim]

GOULI,

Stating an opinion without having all the facts is worthless. I think you should apologise and accept that you crossed the line.

If you listen to the ATC / VS25B Pan transmission, you will hear that they did indeed report the incident to ATC at the time! :=

[ExGrunt]

Hi All,

I had a recent experience driving on a motorway in France. We had just come of an evening Eurotunnel and there was a coach with students who had been on the same shuttle. There is a stretch just east of Dunkerque with long lines of sight (3km+). I was about 900m behind the coach when someone in the back seat started lasing the cars.

Having read the threads on here I knew what was coming and was able to use the sun visor to block the direct line of sight betwen myself and the coach while still being able to see the road immediately ahead enough to brake.

The expereince was not so much a constant light, but more a strafing so bright light when the laser hit something in the car and then darkness as the firer's hand shook.

We were lucky that it was late and the road wasn't that busy and I had the prior information. If it had come as a surprise I would have struggled.

EG

[pax britanica]

I am just stunned that numerous people here feel that this crew could have carried on over the Atlantic . Even in summer with benign weather and going to a less manic place than JFK it would be foolish . In winter across the N Atlantic -possible diversions to places like Gander and Bangor Maine under feet of snow plus the JFK ATC environment which basically sounds like a tobacco auction it is insanity.

to illustrate why this sort of incident must always be handled like this crew people should reflect on the incident a good few years ago of a BA 747 -100 I think flying Bahrain to london- .Three crew as an FE on board. One crew member ill pretty much at the start of trip and another who became ill en route. Experience captain carried on to LHR - approach went awry with aircraft well of centre line and having to do a very late visual go around. This ended with prosecution of the respected captain and his subsequent suicide and I am very sure the airline SOPS were changed to emphasise that a crew is a minimum and one can certainly never willing go below 2 fully fit and functioning crew members . One pilot flying on his own is emergency only situations with no alternative like sudden medical capacitation or the BA skipper who got sucked out of the window.

[Heliport]

G0uliI meant no personal insult to the flight crew

So describing what they did as an hysterical overreaction and accusing them of gross incompetence is not, by your standards, insulting them personally.

:rolleyes:

Pax B I am just stunned that numerous people here feel that this crew could have carried on over the Atlantic .

Not numerous.

[LlamaFarmer]

G0ULI, what a presumptuous and inappropriate comment to make.


From the CAA ALERSA page...
"If you have experienced one or more of the following after
a laser beam exposure please consult an eye specialist:
Eye problems – swelling, pain, itching, watering, discharge, dryness or redness of the eye. Visual disturbance – blurring, black spot, trouble reading, loss of peripheral vision, oaters, halos, poor night vision, sensitivity to light. These symptoms may not appear until hours after the incident and may not be related directly to laser exposure but could reflect other eye issues perhaps not previously noticed."


I fully support the crew's right to exercise the decision they see fit.

You don't know what was going on with the pilots eye sight, and you don't know that the laser wasn't high powered.


Having been targeted by a laser in the past, not on a commercial flight, but when flying friends at night in a piston twin, it affected my vision for quite some time that night. I ended up converting to IFR and putting the screens up because having avoided the area for around 30 minutes it started again as soon as we reached the same area, which unfortunately was not really avoidable without diverting to somewhere much further away.

I had to get the tower to turn up the HIALS to their max brightness and it was still a challenge to identify the airfield until much closer, such was the disturbance to my vision.



I sure as hell wouldn't want to endure several hours across the Atlantic like that, even if there was another crew member to relieve me. I'd rather be safely on the ground so I could see an eye specialist as soon as possible if things got worse.

Eyes are exceptionally delicate things, and one thing to consider is that cabin pressure can have all sorts of affects on the eyes following injury to it.
A friend of mine in the forces suffered ocular trauma from debris blast, an IED went off a several hundred metres away and he got blasted with stones etc... apart from the damage to his eye he was fine aside from minor cuts and scrapes, as were the rest of the guys fortunately. But he was advised not to fly for 6 months due to increased pressure in the eye, and that any change to external pressure (i.e. a high cabin altitude, or scuba diving) could severely increase his risk of developing glaucoma, and blindness.


Now I don't know what kind of damage a laser can do regarding intraocular pressure, but I sure as **** am not going to risk my eyesight by continuing a flight for several hours at high altitude if I am having problems with my eye(s) following a laser attack.

[Herod]

The medical/technical discussion is interesting, but with reference to the crew's actions, can I just quote what used to be the written instruction to captains of the tea-clippers and such. "Appointed as Master, under God, for this voyage". Captain's decision - end of story.

[Mark in CA]

A bit over the top?

[yeoman]

GOULI

in your exceptionally misguided first post on this thread you waffled on about eye angles and distances etc. associated with being lasered from the front.

I was lasered recently at 7000' near MAN.

From the side. Just a thought. Try it. Thinking that is.

As an aside, ATC and the police made a great job of it and actually caught the fool concerned. He was using a powerful and therefore illegal laser bought on t'interweb.

All went well as the police were very keen to see the cretin done and properly. The UK judiciary had other ideas and as he'd had a difficult childhood or some such bolleaux he was just told not to be naughty any more. I was off work for a week and the eye specialist I saw was very clear that I'd been lucky as a side on hit is very bad news. Seems my natural reaction to turn to the light was in fact a bit of luck.

It'd be altogether better if it was stamped on long ago of course. IMHO this and clowns with drones are the biggest latent safety threat we face today.

[Fortissimo]

Mark in CA

'Banned in the UK' will be hard to achieve and will not happen, but having laser pointers classified as offensive weapons will make a big difference and is certainly not over the top. That would give police the right to stop and search somebody for possession - at the moment they can't do that even if they reasonably believe the individual to have been responsible for an attack, which makes prosecution a tad difficult at times.

Banning high-power lasers (rather than all lasers) is a different question. There is work going on in Europe that may lead to high-power devices being banned in the EC - always assuming we are still part of it! - and the existing legislation in the UK supposedly limits pointers to 1mW. That becomes pretty meaningless when you can import via the internet or pick them up from the street vendors on your travels. The other issue, as mentioned earlier, is that power output is often different from the declared spec. At least with a few simple changes to the law we might be able to make a difference. We might even prevent a few life-changing injuries on the way.

We know from BALPA surveys that attacks are under-reported, possibly by a third, and that only takes account of UK operators. The overseas operators (50% of the commercial traffic) are supposed to report to their own NAAs. If we don't report all attacks we get in the UK, why should we expect others to report all attacks here as well? 2015 figures are likely to reveal 1800+ attacks, and if we apply a margin for overseas operators and UK under-reporting, we could actually be looking at 3500-4000 events (crimes) per year.

New Zealand managed to make a serious reduction in its attack rates via a combination of restrictions on power and carriage rules, and an increase in penalties. If it worked for them, it should work for us.

[LlamaFarmer]

A bit over the top?

Not really.

If you have reasonable grounds for having or using a low-powered one (such as a teacher/lecturer, builder, etc) then you would be allowed one.

If you do not have reasonable grounds and/or you have a high-powered one, then it would be an issue.


In the same way that having a knife without good reason is an offence, but if you do have good reason (such as a chef taking knives to/from work) then it is deemed acceptable if not used illegally or for threatening with.



By classing them as offensive weapons, it means that a conviction would be easier, and the punishment upon conviction would be greater, acting to hopefully deter others who may otherwise have gone on to do the same.

[PDR1]

<I was lasered recently at 7000' near MAN.>

Can you provide any independent cites for this? I'm just baulking a little bit at the marksmanship required to target an aeroplane's cockpit windows from a range of several miles and would like some confirmation that it actually happens (and with what equipment).

PDR

[G0ULI]

It is perhaps worth mentioning that despite laser attacks on aircraft being measured in the thousands per year around the globe, not a single crash has resulted as a result of these incidents, nor a single life lost.

That may well be due to the outstanding performance and training of professional aircrew or it may be that the disruption that such incidents cause is in fact over stated.

Anything that needlessly endangers an aircraft in flight is to be utterly condemned.

As self loading freight, I may not know much about professional flight operations, but I do know a lot about laser beams, beam divergence angles, diffraction, attenuation through glass and optical coatings and eye safety when using lasers. Other posters have already supplied sufficient details for readers to make their own assessment of the risks posed to sight from high powered optical sources aimed at an aircraft in flight.

Typically laser dazzle incidents do not result in permanent injury but may cause temporary disruption of normal vision, disorientation, confusion and eye irritation, all effects that are seriously hazardous to flight, especially in darkness.

I fully accept the crew acted in accordance with their training but question the decision to return to the departure airport rather than landing at the nearest available airport for the pilot to receive urgent medical attention. Nothing to do with the costs of providing accomodation and an onward flight for the passengers I suppose? Bean counters strike again. Heathrow is a pretty busy airport for single pilot operations, although a Pan call would facilitate matters.

[Capot]

IMHO this and clowns with drones are the biggest latent safety threat we face today.Better stand-by for a monstering; that's what I got when I stated this view and then stuck to it in R&N a little while ago.

I ducked out of the argument when it became apparent it was a waste of time. I think, I hope, I said something along the lines of "OK then, let's wait, shall we, until the first loss of life in an aviation incident or accident caused by a drone, before making selling, owning or operating one a criminal offence". Nothing that has happened since has proved me wrong. We are simply waiting for that loss of life to happen.

Mind you, the first mass casualty event caused by a drone is even more likely to be terrorism-related, whether or not an aircraft is the target.

PS I see that what I actually said, just under a year ago was What a pity that, as always, we are waiting for the bodies to pile up before acting forcefully to remove a known and obvious hazard. (EG - empty fuel tank ignition.)

[cockpitvisit]

If that had happened in JFK it gives Virgin crewing problems for the reciprocal sector.

Are outbound and return flights LHR-JFK operated by the same crew??

I thought the crew would be heading to a hotel for a rest period, instead of immediately operating the return flight. This would give Virgin plenty of time to fly in a replacement crew.

[Wirbelsturm]

It is perhaps worth mentioning that despite l@ser attacks on aircraft being measured in the thousands per year around the globe, not a single crash has resulted as a result of these incidents, nor a single life lost.

Oh that's okay then, we'll all have to put up with these idiots doing their best to distract, dazzle and blind us until someone pays with their life and then it'll become a problem.

Great.

question the decision to return to the departure airport rather than landing at the nearest available airport

Ironically it is often easier to return to your home base where you are familiar and comfortable with all procedures, approaches, taxy patterns and parking areas than it is to divert single pilot to an airfield that you are totally unfamiliar with.

What may seem 'logical' with 20/20 hindsight is often not so logical when fed with further details and facts. Unless you have experience of operating 200 tonne aircraft into unfamiliar fields you won't begin to comprehend the potential problems especially if your colleague is not up to assisting you with your approach. Go with what you know.

Typically laser dazzle incidents do not result in permanent injury but may cause temporary disruption of normal vision, disorientation, confusion and eye irritation, all effects that are seriously hazardous to flight, especially in darkness.


Surely the effects are entirely dependent upon what device is being used and it's power level? Both the US military and the Chinese Military have laser blinding weapons for anti aircraft use. I'm not saying the chav muppets are using things like that but a powerful visible spectrum laser shone into the eyes at night is a dangerous thing. Quite simply there is absolutely no excuse for it.

As for the ability to 'target' the aircraft we are normally not talking about a constant perfect bead on the aircraft. The beam usually flickers about as the fool on the other end tries to track the aircraft.

[Basil]

Heathrow is a pretty busy airport for single pilot operations, although a Pan call would facilitate matters.
It does. Mayday is even better if you are single pilot in a twin with an engine fire.
On that occasion the handling by ATC was outstanding.

[Capot]

This would give Virgin plenty of time to fly in a replacement crew.So it would, but dead-heading time cannot be counted as rest or off-duty time, at least in airlines I used to work with. So the replacement would need a rest period before operating.

[Loose rivets]

The above does bring one to the combination of drone and laser. Frightening. The next scenarios would better be written by Ian Fleming.

[Dave's brother]

It is perhaps worth mentioning that despite l@ser attacks on aircraft being measured in the thousands per year around the globe, not a single crash has resulted as a result of these incidents, nor a single life lost.

That may well be due to the outstanding performance and training of professional aircrew or it may be that the disruption that such incidents cause is in fact over stated.

Gouli, surely you're not saying that, because no one has died yet, laser attacks are not dangerous. Please tell me you're not even suggesting that as a possible argument.

As self loading freight, I may not know much about professional flight operations... [I] question the decision to return to the departure airport rather than landing at the nearest available airport for the pilot to receive urgent medical attention.

Sorry, but I don't think you know much about eyes, either. Given the choice, I'd rather struggle on for an extra few minutes and land at Heathrow to get some world class eyeball doctors - eg at Moorfields Eye Hospital - rather than land at Shannon.

And I'm struggling to square this implied criticism that they didn't land quickly enough with your earlier accusation that they need not have landed early at all. I respectfully suggest you just stop contributing to this thread now because you're only making things worse.

Failing that, try shining a laser in your left ear and see if the light comes out the right.

[wiggy]

cockpitvisit

I thought the crew would be heading to a hotel for a rest period, instead of immediately operating the return flight. This would give Virgin plenty of time to fly in a replacement crew.

Obviously that's not why VA returned last night but as a generic reply to your comment ( because the principles apply if for example somebody falls ill downroute):

How quickly can you get a replacement, perhaps from home, into the base airport (2-3 hours)?
What's the delay until the next available outbound flight departs: Later same day- 2-3 hours+? The next day A.M.- 8-10+?
What's the flight time base - destination (e.g. LHR-JFK, 8'ish hours) ?
How long a rest period is then needed post positioning before operating back?
(may be 11-12 hours at hotel, depends on the rule set )?

You can do the sums, but unless you're lucky you almost certainly won't have "plenty of time".

TBH I've usually found that if things go wrong downroute on a <=24 hour slip that unless the company can re-jig the trip of a suitably qualified pilot already at that destination and switch him/her onto your trip you'll usually have a delay.

[G0ULI]

Dave's brother

I stated that anything that needlessly endangers an aircraft in flight is to be utterly condemned in the next sentence, which you chose not to quote.

I'm quite sure that Eire has eye surgeons that are the equal of those in the UK and who may have trained at Moorfields. Eire is not some medical backwater.

The laser attack happened close to Heathrow. As I understand it, a decision to turn back was made out over the Atlantic. It would appear that it took a while to assess the effects of the laser dazzle. Having made a decision to land in order for medical treatment to be provided, landing at the nearest airport with medical facilities would seem appropriate. However, Wirbelsturm has pointed out that landing at an airport you are familiar with is better than an unscheduled landing elsewhere.

[LlamaFarmer]

I fully accept the crew acted in accordance with their training but question the decision to return to the departure airport rather than landing at the nearest available airport for the pilot to receive urgent medical attention. Nothing to do with the costs of providing accomodation and an onward flight for the passengers I suppose? Bean counters strike again. Heathrow is a pretty busy airport for single pilot operations, although a Pan call would facilitate matters.

Nearest suitable airport is not necessarily the closest in straight-line distance. Suitable isn't just talking about 'can the aircraft safely land there', it's talking about a whole load of factors, which you take into account or disregard, depending on the severity of the situation. If it is very critical, you disregard all but the flight safety factors. If it is not so critical and there are many options available, you can begin to consider operational/commercial aspects, such as replacement aircraft/crew, engineering cover, pax/ac handling etc.


Especially for a big aircraft (i.e. long haul) you have to factor in things like altitude, weight (actual and max landing), fuel (and fuel dump rate if applicable) before making your decision.


If it takes you 30 minutes to dump a necessary amount of fuel and a further 20 minutes to get down from altitude you have a lot of time to travel a lot of distance. Returning to ADEP is a pretty reasonable decision rather than dropping into somewhere in Ireland.

[G0ULI]

LlamaFarmer

Thank you. It makes a lot more sense when someone takes the time to explain the reasoning behind such decisions.

While professional pilots frequently express outrage when their decisions are questioned by ground dwellers and self loading freight, our safety also depends on them being able to do their jobs safely and without unnecessary distractions. We also ultimately pay their wages, in plane tickets and transport costs, so I think it does some good to mount a challenge to the decision making process sometimes.

[Twiglet1]

Can't see (excuse the pun) any reason why the Captain wouldn't return to LHR. VS are based there, might have had a spare crew unlikely but if not then the next day. Yes div to Shannon but unfamiliar airport increased work for one man if situ deteriorated.
Fact is crews come up with a host of reasons not to turn up for work. Once airborne however, no one would divert back to base without good reason. Hope the FO is OK.

[Wirbelsturm]

so I think it does some good to mount a challenge to the decision making process sometimes

Why? Do you also tell a surgeon how to go about his business? Or a Dentist? Do you tell a delivery driver how to setup his route to deliver a package for you? Perhaps you expect to be involved in the decision making process behind putting a power station together as you pay for electricity?

You do not 'pay my wages' I'm afraid. The company that employs me for my skills and the execution of the privileges of my licence pays me. You pay for a service and the company pays me to provide that service. Yes the revenue generated by commercial passengers is the source of my remuneration as distributed by my employer but I'm afraid that gives no passenger the right to question the validity of my command decisions. For those I am responsible to my crew and the company.

[wanabee777]

My guess is that, once notified, Virgin Flight Control, after consultation with their legal department, had no choice but to recall the flight.

This, from a purely liability standpoint.

[Hotel Tango]

so I think it does some good to mount a challenge to the decision making process sometimes.

Not by idiots like you, who haven't a clue what they are talking about G0ULI. You've just dug yourself in deeper. For God's sake just shut up!

[G0ULI]

Wirbelsturm

I do indeed tell my surgeons what course of treatment I want and have been fortunate to be able to select those best suited to my needs. Dentists likewise.

The NHS has specific provisions for anyone to do this if you know how the system works.

I may not care specifically how a package is delivered to me, but I can ensure that I select a delivery company that delivers when I want and where I want. I don't have to sit around at home all day waiting to see if a parcel will arrive.

Likewise other trades.

If I am paying the bill, I get to choose who does the job, how the job is done, with what materials and to what standard. I expect the people I employ to use their professional skills to get the job done safely, efficiently and finished or delivered on time. For me, the system works. I'm in good health for my age, as far as I am concerned, and I have fortunately never been seriously let down by any tradesman. Even my parcels and packages have arrived without any issues. I have never had a "lost" delivery in the mail. Perhaps that is extraordinary, but I regard it as a result of doing my research and picking the best man or service for the task at hand.

I pick my electricity supplier (EDF) because they are heavily invested in nuclear power, which I happen to support. Clearly many people would consider that a ridiculous decision to take considering the consequences of a mishap at a nuclear plant. I just happen to believe that nuclear power is less damaging to the wider environment than other forms of power generation. I may well be wrong about that. Sometimes you just have to go with your feelings.

I pick my airlines based upon their safety record primarily, although Quantas don't operate from all the destinations I would like to fly from and to. :)

I may not pay anyone's wages directly into their pocket, but I decide what services I use and which companies are getting my money. The very definition of a free market economy.

Once an aircraft leaves the ground, the Captain carries the responsibility for making all decisions that affect the flight. With the exception of the co-pilot, no one has the right to challenge those decisions while the aircraft is aloft. After an incident has happened and been resolved, it is only right to consider if a better course of action could have been pursued. In most cases it will turn out that the Captain made the right choices given the information available to him at that time. This is generally true in most other professions too and can be considered a measure of skill and judgement attained through experience.

[Sober Lark]

Media attention as we have seen coupled with the low probability of persons being caught can only increase the attractiveness and frequency of this type of reckless endanderment to such idiots.

[Sallyann1234]

GOULI
After an incident has happened and been resolved, it is only right to consider if a better course of action could have been pursued.

Indeed. And such considerations are always made - by those who are able and qualified to do so.
As you have amply demonstrated today you are not equipped to make those judgements.
It really is time that you left here and moved back to the Spotters Corner where you can converse with equals.

[Wellfan]

<I was lasered recently at 7000' near MAN.>

<Can you provide any independent cites for this? I'm just baulking a little bit at the marksmanship required to target an aeroplane's cockpit windows from a range of several miles and would like some confirmation that it actually happens (and with what equipment).?

Drawing on my amateur astronomy experience, not as hard as you think. Unlike when firing a projectile at an aircraft, you don't have to lead as the "projectile" is moving at the speed of light.

If you consider a plane at 8000 feet moving at 270 knots (pulled that from Flight tracker) max slew rate is 3 degrees a second.

They simply point it at the pointy end and can track with ease. Idiots should be pulled through with a Christmas Tree...

[LlamaFarmer]

I do indeed tell my surgeons what course of treatment I want and have been fortunate to be able to select those best suited to my needs. Dentists likewise.

I am glad you appreciated (and hopefully appear to have been educated in) the somewhat basic insight of crew decision making.

But I have to question your wisdom of the above.


Surgeons and doctors and dentists know more about their field than I ever will, I wouldn't dream of telling one of them how to do their job or turn up telling them what treatment I want (unless things had been discussed and they had presented more than one option).

In the same way I wouldn't expect them to tell me how to do my job or what decisions to make (the exception being if I there was a serious medical issue with someone on board my flight, in which case I would have invited any experienced medical professional on board to make such calls with precedence over operational factors)

[A and C]

Attacked by a green laser at about 3000 ft just as we locked onto the 26ILS at Gatwick last week. I have had four laser attacks in the last twelve months.

The worst attacks were two attacks in two days at FCO, the Italian authorities seem to take no action whatsoever.

[G0ULI]

Sallyann1234 and LlamaFarmer

I am now much better informed about the decision processes and it makes a lot more sense to me now rather than listening to an ATC conversation with Shannon and seeing a map with a flight path heading out into the Atlantic before turning back.

I apologise if anyone felt offended by my comments. It genuinely wasn't meant that way. This thread has given a good insight into the multiple decisions flight crews must balance and the decision to return to Heathrow could not have been lightly made. Fortunately there was a safe outcome for those involved.

I have several doctors among my family members, so discussing and picking a preferred treatment or surgeon is not as risky as it sounds.

[UK019]

I have a suspicion that there are no real airline pilots here who would genuinely, seriously question the decision of this crew to return after this incident.

If there are, could you identify yourselves so that I can avoid flying with you?

Thank you.

[donotdespisethesnake]

I was once passing under a motorway bridge, and some idiots dropped a rock onto my car. While not causing much damage, it was very startling. "Kids larking around" you may say. A few days later another car was hit, they were not so lucky. The windscreen was smashed, in the resulting collision the driver died.

I'm normally not in favour of knee jerk reactions, but in this case there is absolutely no need for handheld, high power lasers. There is a certain class of stupid people with reckless nature who will use whatever is to hand for the purpose of deliberate vandalism, and they either don't care or too stupid to realise the consequences, if people are injured or even die.

If there was a petition to ban handheld lasers, I would sign it.

[parabellum]

Deleted - see Airbubba post below. (Got it now Airbubba, tape link wasn't working for me earlier).


From the time the decision to abort the flight and land was taken, until the wheels actually touched down, was probably little different between returning to LHR or circling to dump fuel and land at Shannon. A return to LHR would be the obvious choice if the emergency is considered insufficient for an immediate landing at the nearest suitable/available airport.

[Airbubba]

I am wondering when all the details are known if the attack from the l@ser happened at a lower altitude and the mention of '8000 feet' comes about because that is a level often associated with fuel dump over populated areas?


Please listen to the audio clip posted above. They dumped at FL360 in Shannon's airspace long after the laser incident. They reported that they were at 8000 feet 6 or 7 miles west of LHR when the laser attack occurred.

[wiggy]

To successfully illuminate such a small target at such a distance with a hand-held device shows amazing powers of dexterity and precision - well beyond any normal human capability.

In other words you think the hundreds of reports per year of pilots of being illuminated by lasers in the UK alone are a work of fiction?

These devices are used as designators/target markers/ or even mundane pointers for several reasons, one of which is they're relatively easy to aim ....

[TopBunk]

GOULI

I am now much better informed about the decision processes and it makes a lot more sense to me now rather than listening to an ATC conversation with Shannon and seeing a map with a flight path heading out into the Atlantic before turning back.

I apologise if anyone felt offended by my comments. It genuinely wasn't meant that way. This thread has given a good insight into the multiple decisions flight crews must balance and the decision to return to Heathrow could not have been lightly made. Fortunately there was a safe outcome for those involved.

Maybe the best thing you can learn from this is that you have two ears and one mouth and to use them in that ratio.

[A and C]

It would seem that some on this forum know much better that I about the frequency of laser attacks.

Obviously the very brigh green light that illuminates my cockpit at night is something other than a laser because we are informed that a laser is too difficult to aim.

My view is that a laser attack on an aircraft should attract a minimum five year prison sentence as the best way of protecting the safety of the public both in the air and on the ground.

[Tourist]

I think some are misunderstanding what is meant by "aiming" a laser.

An incredibly brief flash past the cockpit is not going to damage eyes unless the laser is spectacularly strong. To maintain accuracy on the cockpit at any range handheld is impossible.

[Dave's brother]

To successfully illuminate such a small target at such a distance with a hand-held device shows amazing powers of dexterity and precision - well beyond any normal human capability.
Rubbish. All you have to do if you're a thrill-seeking kid is waggle it about. They're not trying to shoot it out of the sky like they're in a James Bond film.

[andytug]

I think some are misunderstanding what is meant by "aiming" a laser.

An incredibly brief flash past the cockpit is not going to damage eyes unless the laser is spectacularly strong. To maintain accuracy on the cockpit at any range handheld is impossible.

By that logic it would also be impossible to take a photogragh of said aircraft with a high-magnification zoom lens camera handheld.....but that can be done easily also.

[Pace]

I had a laser attack flying into Leeds at night in a corporate jet I had an FO with me.
It was temporally blinding, startling and we reported it to ATC but not IMO incapacitating.

Where I feel it could be incapacitating is if you had an unknown tendency to fits or other intense light induced conditions where such an attack could bring on that condition.

To find the culprit would be like finding a needle in a haystack

Pace

[HamishMcBush]

Could someone explain the use of the ampersand symbol in the "L" word please? The word iteslf is an acronym for something like
Light
Amplification by
Stimulated
Emission and
Radiation

(IIRC from my school physics days); don't tell me that it's banned by a swear-checker

[Chesty Morgan]

I had a laser attack flying into Leeds at night in a corporate jet I had an FO with me.
It was temporally blinding, startling and we reported it to ATC but not IMO incapacitating.

You were temporarily blinded but not temporarily incapacitated?

[Frontal]

I think some are misunderstanding what is meant by "aiming" a l@ser.

An incredibly brief flash past the cockpit is not going to damage eyes unless the l@ser is spectacularly strong. To maintain accuracy on the cockpit at any range handheld is impossible.

To put this into some perspective, these nasty little ch@v criminals are taking handheld high power l@sers (5-10watt) and aiming them in the direction of the aircraft. Due to the high quantities of illicit substances in their blood stream their little hands are shaking which means that the whole aircraft gets a good bathing in l@ser light caused by their inability to hold the l@ser steadily. All it needs is a brief glimpse of the l@ser light entering the flight deck and for one of the crew to look in the general direction of the light (natural human reaction) and them be caught by the full strength of the l@ser when it finds its way back into the FD window again.

IMHO, find the perps, make an example out of them (big time) and ban anything but the lowest powered l@sers.

[Chesty Morgan]

...at a range of a few dozen feet. I challenge you to show that you could hold a hand-held laser pointer with the spot on a specific foot-square feature of a tower block over 3 miles away. Try it when you're next on stop-over in a hotel - try illuminating a target on the other side of town and see just how difficult it is.

You don't need to illuminate a specific spot you merely have to flash it briefly across my eyes and that my friend only requires a bit of luck and the very fact that you can't aim it exactly helps.

Having been the subject of a laser attack I can tell you that getting a laser in your eyes even for less than half a second does cause flash blindness. In my case it lasted for several minutes and I couldn't see the instruments properly during that time.

yesterday I challenged someone to provide cites for claims made - a claim that someone had been caught and prosecuted for using a l@ser against an airliner. It shouldn't have been that hard because such an arrest (never mind a prosecution) would have made it into the news. Unless and until I see that cite I will regard many of these claims with a degree of scepticism. Not all of them - I wouldn't for a moment suggest that such attacks never happen. But if you read back through this thread you'll see several claims which don't really stack up.

Have you tried Google?

[lederhosen]

Do you have something tangible to back up your last assertion that these are incredibly brief flashes Tourist? I would expect that my experience is fairly typical and I have been hit multiple times. It is difficult to judge how long the exposure to the laser has been. My immediate reaction is to look away. But the events are highly distracting particularly high powered green lasers which I have experienced many times (6-8) in the middle east and the Balkans. On glancing back the laser has still been there, which suggests something other than that which you are saying. Switching off lights also helps, which again indicates that the laser is being actively targetted.

My first concern is to assess if there has been any damage, which takes a moment. As these events (at least the ones I have been aware of) happen at night, it is not always easy to assess whether blurring was there before as a result of tired eyes or due to damage. So far touch wood there does not seem to have been any permanent damage, but I have definitely been aware of some blurred vision the next day. It is reassuring to hear your suggestion that nothing can possibly happen, but some scientific references would be even better.

[Airbanda]

Could someone explain the use of the ampersand symbol in the "L" word please?

IIRC it's because if you're seeing the site with ads use of the properly spelled word causes the software to pull up ads for the outfits that supply the lasers!!

[dsc810]

@PDR1

For prosecutions - try this......
Three jailed for using laser pens at East Midlands Airport - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27055841)

or this.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-29648440

[wiggy]

Then consider what an aeroplane at 8,000 feet and a couple of miles distance actually looks like to a ground-based observer. Mostly it's a blob - a grey/black silhouette. How would said observer know that his/her l@ser was even HITTING the aeroplane, let alone the cockpit window? The l@ser target designators which you reference in support of your point have telescopic optics for this, without which (I suggest) these claimed acts of marksmanship are simply impossible for normal humans.

Neverthless despite your beliefs there are multiple officially registered reports (worldwide) of significant distraction or worse being caused by lasers illuminating aircraft, even briefly.

So either

1. You are implying those making the reports on being illuminated by lasers are lying or

2.You are overestimating the level of marksmanship required.

Which is it?


Yesterday people turned on Gouli and tried to bulkly him into silence because (not being an ATPL) he wasn't allowed to have an opinion on a subject which they felt he knew nothing about.

And to be fair it looks their feelings were at least in part correct since Gouli has now said - " I am now much better informed about the decision processes and it makes a lot more sense to me now".


Perhaps its time for those bullies to withdraw their abuse or consider adopting a similar silence on the technical nature of l@ser devices. Who knows, you might actually learn something!


Aiming systems maybe, but don't need any help with the technical side of the Physics, thanks anyway...

[Pace]

You were temporarily blinded but not temporarily incapacitated?

Chesty Morgan

I stand corrected! Yes temporarily incapacitated which wasn't a major problem at altitude but would be on the latter stages of the approach.

The vast majority of over the counter laser devices are low powered and should be regulated to even lower power fit for purpose which is usually as pointers in a classroom environment.

There are far more powerful devices available on the internet and these could cause serious damage including damage to the Retina so the government need to regulate these out of use of the general public.
The over the counter variety which are low powered should be regulated to lower power still to a minima for using as a classroom pointer.
These things are not toys to be used by bored kids getting a thrill

A ban on the devices other than the very lowest power is the only way as catching the culprits is almost impossible from a position of a jet travelling at high speed

Pace

[Chesty Morgan]

Ok PDR as you're the resident laser expert why don't you tell us what the beam diameter of a typical laser would be at that distance?

[Chesty Morgan]

Let me help you out.

A typical beam divergence of a green laser is between 1.2 and 1.5 mRad.

With a beam width of 1mm at 1 foot the beam width at 15000 feet would be approximately 5500mm, or 18 feet.

I think it would be fairly easy to hit a 1 foot target with an 18 foot laser.

[Sallyann1234]

PDR

yesterday I challenged someone to provide cites for claims made - a claim that someone had been caught and prosecuted for using a l@ser against an airliner. It shouldn't have been that hard because such an arrest (never mind a prosecution) would have made it into the news.

If you would like to turn to the second page of this forum you will find an ongoing thread about laser attacks and prosecutions of offenders. This alone shows your lack of experience of the subject.

As for the accuracy of laser sighting, no-one has suggested that it is easy to hit an aircraft. That is probably part of the attraction for those who attempt it. The Virgin aircraft in this case was flying a standard departure route from Heathrow, and the laser user may have targeted many aircraft on this and possibly previous days before achieving a hit.

You clearly know a great deal about lasers, but you do not understand their effect on the pilot of an aircraft full of passengers.

[wanabee777]

Once the report was made to Flight Control, the decision to continue or RTB was, for the most part, out of the Captain's hands.

[lederhosen]

PDR1 it is good to see some numbers and your post triggered a couple of minutes search which found a green laser with a beam diameter of 2x7 mm and a divergence of 2 mRad. Apparently their advertised use is for pointing out stars which would be a bit difficult if they wave around as you suggest. But I imagine that gets a bit slow and aiming at planes might be tempting. The beam diameter therefore at the distances we are talking about seems to be over five meters and my real life rather than theoretical input is that they can definitely hit you.

[unworry]

My nephew is an electronics nerd of sorts.

He raised a disturbing point about the recent proliferation of youTube videos detailing:

- how to get the laser diode out of a laptop DVD burner
- how to turn a 5mw laser into a 100mw laser
- and so on.

The vids he showed me each had several million views :eek:

Of course, any one smart enough to do these hacks isnt going to test it out on the nearest jet, right? :ugh:


Go with what you know.
@Wirbelsturm - wise words, sir

[Chesty Morgan]

By "damage" do you mean temporary blindness, distraction, light spots or permanent physical damage?

[lederhosen]

The one I found in a very short period of time says min 900mW, how does that tie in with your numbers? How low would you have to be and how long an exposure for this to be dangerous in your opinion?

The difference seems to be that Chesty and I have experienced this in real life and it was unpleasant....hopefully nothing more. I would be delighted if what PDR1 is saying is correct and there is no risk. But so far I am not convinced, particularly about the exposure time and the difficulty in aiming, which frankly does not tie in with my experience.

[Flying Lawyer]

PDR1
I disagree entirely with your comments about Gouli.

yesterday I challenged someone to provide cites for claims made - a claim that someone had been caught and prosecuted for using a l@ser against an airliner. It shouldn't have been that hard because such an arrest (never mind a prosecution) would have made it into the news. Unless and until I see that cite I will regard many of these claims with a degree of scepticism.
The reason that there are few laser/airliner prosecutions relative to the number of incidents is that, unless the conduct is persistent, it is difficult to trace the perpetrators.

Some prosecutions from the US -

2014, Stephen Bukucs, 6 months prison & 3 years Supervised Release.
Airliners on approach to Portland International.
Admitted 25 incidents over several months.
Arrested after intense air and ground surveillance by FBI agents and police officers.

2013, Adam Gardenhire, 30 months prison.
Corporate jet on approach to Burbank.
Further charge relating to police helicopter which traced him dropped in plea bargain.
(Sentence reduced following a successful appeal on a point of law.)

2012, Glenn Hansen, 6 months prison & $10,000 fine.
Airliners departing Orlando International on at least 23 occasions.

2012, Michael Smith, 2 years prison & 3 years Supervised Release.
Airliner on approach to Omaha and Police helicopter which traced him.


Whether you believe it or not, the use of lasers against aircraft is a serious problem worldwide.


Laser attacks on aeroplanes occur predominantly near airports.
Helicopters (predominantly emergency services) predominantly over cities.


I don't have the latest figures to hand but, in the year ending March 2015, the UK CAA received some 1400 reports - an increase of 3.5% from 2014.

What percentage of those reports do you suggest were false?
ie Made by pilots jumping on the 'bandwagon', as you suggest.

[Chesty Morgan]

'E's buggered orf!

[PDR1]

Well I posted an analysis with the power density numbers showing that the problem was unlikely to be as significant as suggested, but someone has deleted it. Why?

PDR

Edit: in fact BOTH of my posts analysing the numbers have been deleted. Why??

[Chesty Morgan]

Actually all but one of your posts have gone.

[lederhosen]

Who knows ....but can you please pm me an answer to my last question PDR1 if this is considered too sensitive by the mods.

[Tourist]

By that logic it would also be impossible to take a photogragh of said aircraft with a high-magnification zoom lens camera handheld.....but that can be done easily also.

No, a high magnification zoom lens has orders of magnitude more "spread" than a laser.

[Tourist]

I, like many others who more likely post on the rotary forum have a reasonable amount of experience when it comes to using a hand held laser pointer called an LPL30.

The hand is certainly not steady enough to maintain lock on an aircraft thousands of feet away, even when the beam is visible through NVG.
The idea that a chav could do anything other than catch the aircraft with a momentary flick doesn't hold water.

I am surprised/disappointed that PDR1s posts are being removed, because I don't see anything in them that could possibly help the people shining lasers, and the are factually correct.

[Chesty Morgan]

You don't have to maintain a lock. There isn't an LGB incoming. :E

A momentary flash or two, or three, or more is enough.

It is, however, quite easy to zap a passing airliner :suspect:

[chickenlover]

I'm genuinely intrigued, those few of you that think us in the pilot community are 'overplaying' this ;- Do you think we are overstating the number of occurrences or the effects of them ? I'm a current Airline guy and I know of half a dozen colleagues that have been Lazed and at least half of those suffered medical effects of varying duration. Even if there are no medical consequences, can you not see the issue with being temporarily blinded/dazzled just before landing/after take-off ?

[SorryNotaPilotBut]

One day I was sitting in my home office and a little runt (misspelling) 100 yards up the road shone a laser through my window. I was staggered by the effect of what must have been a very momentary flash from what was probably a low-powered device (he was about ten years old so doubt he would have gotten hold of anything seriously powerful); my world turned green and I was seeing spots for quite a few minutes afterwards - I would not have liked to be piloting an aircraft, or driving or doing anything requiring decent vision. Seems to me that some of the posters who are suggesting it's not a potentially very serious problem have never had one of these things shone in their faces.....

[Heliport]

PDRI says:
I posted an analysis with the power density numbers showing that the problem was unlikely to be as significant as suggested


His theory focuses upon lasers aimed at airliners at height.

The evidence from around the world shows that, in practice, airliners are predominantly targeted when they are on approach to or departing from airports.
The former more often than the latter.

There is a significant problem.
Suggesting that there is not is ridiculous.

[Sallyann1234]

Tourist,
The data that PDR1 posted demonstrated that it would be difficult to hold a laser beam onto an aircraft at a few thousand feet, at least for long enough to affect the pilot/s.
But however difficult it may be to 'hit' an aircraft the fact is that some users have been able to achieve this, as demonstrated by the many reports to CAA and other authorities.

There are clearly many of these lasers in the wrong hands, and a 'success' rate of 1% or even 0.1% in hitting an aircraft is still too much.

Where Gouli and PDR1 have gone too far is to suggest that their calculations prove the pilots' reports and actions to be false or with some ulterior motive. That is offensive and unacceptable.

[DroneDog]

I somehow think Karma or Darwin theory will kick in.

Some of these laser pointers are now quite powerful in respect of their size claiming to be able to pump out a few Watts of light energy.
The rocket scientists who buy these like to play with them "show their mates innit" and you will have beam scatter and stray reflections all over the place. i.e. they are slowly destroying their own eyesight. I guarantee not one of the "brain dead" will have had the thought to protect their own eyesight with goggles especially when the are drinking or high and playing with the pointer.

Lets wait to see the first serious self inflicted eye injury.

[seen_the_box]

California Man Walloped With 14-Year Sentence for Shining Laser at Helicopter - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/11/california-man-walloped-with-14-year-sentence-for-shining-laser-at-helicopter)

The Americans certainly don't mess about when it comes to sentencing.

Similar exemplary sentences in the UK would go a long way towards stamping out the stupidity.

Edit. On a disappointing note, it seems (http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article38530227.html) that the pondlfe scum's sentence was vacated on appeal. Still, five years is a not unsubstantial sentence.

[lederhosen]

Actually I do not think PDR1 proved you could not hit an aircraft. I think Chesty's point about divergence (beam diameter at height) easily found on the internet confirms what most of the professional pilots on this site know; that it is not that difficult to target an aircraft. If you can hold it steady enough to point at a star then hitting an aircraft is perfectly possible. Where I thought his calculations were interesting was at what distance he thought it would damage your eyes. The 900 mW laser site sells safety glasses so obviously close in the manufacturer thinks this is a problem. About ninety percent of my encounters with lasers have been on approach. One airfield I regularly approach without lights and with autopilot to minimums because it is such a regular event, not in Europe I might add and nothing gets done about it despite regular reports.

[RAT 5]

I apologise if this has been 'asked & answered' as I cam to this topic quite late. Have there been any reports of laser attacks against other transport personnel, e.g. cars, lorries, trains, etc?

[wiggy]

RAT

Can't vouch for accuracy but a quick Google found this:UK Rail Union Warns over Increase in Laser Attacks | News on News (http://newsonnews.com/story/150216-2428)

and

Police probe after laser shone at Montrose train driver - The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/police-probe-after-laser-shone-at-montrose-train-driver-1-3909989)

[PersonFromPorlock]

Since the randomizer has apparently caused my last post to be eliminated, I'm going to say the same thing in different words: why not wear red lensed laser safety glasses at low altitude? That should cut down on the effectiveness of blue/green lasers, which seem to be the main problem. Such glasses are available cheaply.

[Airbanda]

Since the randomizer has apparently caused my last post to be eliminated, I'm going to say the same thing in different words: why not wear red lensed l@ser safety glasses at low altitude? That should cut down on the effectiveness of blue/green l@sers, which seem to be the main problem. Such glasses are available cheaply.

Given the use of coloured lights/screens on the flightdeck and in runway lighting, PAPI kit etc I'd have thought disadvantage with anything that interfered with colour vision would be pretty clear.

[rugmuncher]

There are options available and being investigated.

Laser Pointer Safety - Protective eyewear for pilots (http://www.laserpointersafety.com/laserglasses/laserglasses/laserglasses.html)

[Rhino power]

(G0ULI) It really is time that you left here and moved back to the Spotters Corner where you can converse with equals.

I take exception that comment, I'm a 'spotter' (although I prefer the term, 'enthusiast') and I certainly don't want to be considered an 'equal' of, G0ULI's! :=

-RP

[Flying Lawyer]

seen_the_box Edit. On a disappointing note, it seems that the pondlfe scum's sentence was vacated on appeal.
It was.

Sergio Rodriguez was originally found guilty of violating two Federal laws:

18 U.S.C. § 39A which deals specifically with laser pointers.
He was sentenced to 5 years (the maximum) and did not appeal either conviction or sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 32 – willfully attempting to interfere with or disable, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft.
He was sentenced to 14 years. (Maximum 20 yrs)

He successfully appealed the second conviction.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, in very brief summary, that the appropriate offence in both instances should have been § 39A.
Quote from the Opinion: "Section 39A is designed for knuckleheads like him." :)
He was ultimately sentenced to 5 years on each, concurrent.

Similar exemplary sentences in the UK would go a long way towards stamping out the stupidity.
Our equivalent of 18 U.S.C. § 39A (maximum 5 yrs) is an offence contrary to Article 222 of the ANO:
“A person must not in the United Kingdom direct or shine any light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot of the aircraft”.
(In force since 2010.)

It is a 'summary only' offence which means that it can be dealt with only in the Magistrates Court, not by a Judge in the Court, and, incredible though it may seem, there is no power to impose a custodial sentence.
The maximum penalty is a fine.

[Fortissimo]

There are problems with laser protection glasses/goggles, they are not perfect, whatever the manufacturers will tell you. For example, some create a problem with depth perception for the instruments so that (eg) PFDs appear to float, some interfere with display colours, etc.

You would need to conduct proper trials to prove that the displays provided by the aircraft OEM are either unaffected by the chosen glasses or that any effects are acceptable.

The doctors will tell you it is normally better to prevent the disease rather than try to cure it later. We should therefore be trying to stop the attacks (which are crimes under UK law) rather than mitigate the results. And before anybody resorts to standard PPrune argumentum ad hominem, I accept that we may eventually need to go down both routes!

[Viper 7]

Product Specifications (http://www.greatlandlaser.com/product-specs/)

I would expect it would be quite easy to hit an aircraft with a laser that emits a fan-shaped beam rather than a "dot" particularly when it is designed to signal searching assets, including aircraft.

The website includes this interesting paragraph:

//
In February 2012, the United States Congress passed into law HR658 (http://www.greatlandlaser.com/HR658.pdf) authorizing appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. Included in the law is Section 311 "Prohibition Against Aiming a Laser Pointer at an Aircraft". Section 311 39A(c)(3) on page 56 specifically exempts "an individual using a laser emergency signaling devices to send an emergency distress signal." Greatland Laser has sold it's patented laser emergency signaling devices throughout the world for over 10 years. We have never had a safety issue with the products. Under the exception provided in this federal law, Rescue Laser are legal to signal an aircraft for help in an emergency.
//

I would submit that jumping to the conclusion that these incidents are all the result of nuisance behaviour with low-powered devices by kids and idiots may be an underreaction. Given the present political climate, it is entirely possible that a certain percentage of these incidents are serious attempts on the safety of the aircraft by serious individuals.

We were issued special helmet visors in the RCAF helicopter fleet that were alleged to protect our vision, perhaps in the long term aircraft manufacturers could include such protection in new windscreens.

[SPIT]

Hi
Why can't they make it a offence for anyone to carry a laser pointer without a GOOD excuse ??. You can't carry a knife as it is an offence. :{:{

[ExGrunt]

@RAT 5,

Have there been any reports of laser attacks against other transport personnel, e.g. cars, lorries, trains, etc?

Yes - see my post 74.

WRT 'aiming': as I said in the post above it more of a strafing as their hand shakes, but the FLASH dark FLASH... combination is part of the problem as it adds to the disorientation in my direct experience.

EG

[hoss183]

The point most of you seem to be missing is that if the beam diverges, it does make the target easier to hit, but the spot power as experienced by the eye will be a tiny fraction of the laser output power equal to the orignal power, the area of the diverged bean at said distance and the eye receiving area.
Some of these lasers rumoured to be 50W for example, are still 5000 times more powerful than what is considered safe (1mW blink reaction safe) so even diverged could be injurious in an unlucky case.
However if you follow my posts on the other laser thread... There is absolutely no reason why any member of joe public needs anything above 1mW for general use (office pointers, laser levels etc) Anything above that is simply dangerous. Laser light is classed as a non-ionizing radiation and in the workplace exposure is controlled by health and safety regulations.
Its long past time these devices were regulated/banned. There is simply no necessary public use for them, and great scope for injury.

[egsc_h17]

I'm going to risk weighing in from the perspective of a background in physics (as well as avionics). Some of the physical observations here read to a physicist how aviation articles in the common press read to pilots. I think it's important for pilots to understand the mechanics behind this topic.

The power level of "high power" diodes purchased by consumers is typically in the tens to hundreds of milliwatts. Inexpensive visible light diodes which claim to be several watts are invariably mis-sold - I come across them now and again and measure them with a thermal effect laser power meter. I think it's reasonable to generalise that a laser pointer bought on eBay is unlikely to be more than a few hundred milliwatts of output power. It's worth noting that most (almost all) cheap visible light lasers are pumped by a much more powerful IR laser and if an appropriate IR filter is not installed the output power will be much higher than that of the visible component alone. IR light will pass the cornea and heat up the retina as easily as most visible light. Only as the wavelength moves into UV does the effect switch from retinal to corneal damage.

That's not to say that somebody who genuinely wishes to incapacitate a pilot might not have purchased a high quality visible laser with several watts of output power. It will have cost them several hundred pounds and I suspect the attackers under discussion here do not fall into this category.

At close range the output of even a low powered diode in the visible spectrum is very dangerous to sight. An 808nm (green) 50mW laser shone at close range into the eye for more than a few milliseconds will could inflict permanent injury. Laser pointers around 200mW are widely available and these could easily cause loss of sight.

Exposure is considerably reduced by distance. For incoherent light (such as a bulb) the power of the light reduces by the inverse square of the radius, which is not true for a perfectly coherent laser source. An ideal laser will have the same power at any distance because the energy does not diverge. However there are no ideal lasers, and the diodes one might purchase on eBay are very far removed from scientific grade. As the beam diverges a smaller area will contact the retina so the exposure is therefore a function of the radius of the beam at the distance of contact multiplied by duration.

At cruise altitude, or well into the climb, or early in descent, the distance of throw is substantial so the beam radius is large and the ratio of the beam area to the retina area is small. Furthermore the duration of exposure is likely to be short because it is difficult to manually track a moving target even with quite a shallow angle of incidence. As such this exposure is very unlikely to cause any damage to the retina - much higher exposures are experienced in night clubs when scanning the crowd with a moving laser (and those exposures are also calculated to be safe). I would suspect that the greater risk to flight safety in these circumstances is the surprise of the momentary flash of light, and the distraction that could result from this.

I would be far more concerned about exposure closer to the source - shortly after takeoff or on final approach. Beam radius at these shorter distances could be as little as a few centimeters even with a low quality source. There is certainly some risk to eyesight in these circumstances, whether that's permanent scarring of the retina or temporary dazzling (which can last for quite some time and is extremely disturbing). The latter effect is possibly why pilots are reporting prolonged exposure in the cockpit, even though it's unlikely that such tracking could be achieved manually. A 10ms exposure at relatively high power could easily dazzle a victim for several seconds.

In the case of the Virgin incident, I feel the co-pilot would be extremely unlucky to have suffered any permanent injury. That doesn't reduce the impact of the distraction and the distress that uncertainty of the consequences must have caused. I feel that flight crews should receive better training on these matters (beyond the occasional bulletin) which might better equip them for decision making during such events. During critical phases of flight it seems entirely appropriate to handle a laser strike as sudden incapacitation.

As for banning lasers - there's already categorisation and control for laser products. It's a matter of enforcement not legislation.

[Airbubba]

I'm going to risk weighing in from the perspective of a background in physics (as well as avionics).

An 808nm (green) 50mW l@ser shone at close range into the eye for more than a few milliseconds will could inflict permanent injury.

808 nm is green?

All this time I thought it was infrared... ;)

Are you maybe thinking of the very common green 532 nm DPSS laser with an 808 nm GaAlAs pumping diode?

Exposure is considerably reduced by distance. For incoherent light (such as a bulb) the power of the light reduces by the inverse square of the radius, which is not true for a perfectly coherent l@ser source. An ideal l@ser will have the same power at any distance because the energy does not diverge.

Aren't you confusing coherence with collimation? It's the collimation that keeps the power from dropping much with distance, not the coherence, right? In fact, don't laser diodes (with a short coherence distance) often use a collimating lens?

[LlamaFarmer]

http://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12705241_1110194242334218_5665595004926945830_n.jpg?oh=1b7b5 d90fad4e5feba1cc1cca32bf810&oe=5761956C

[egsc_h17]

Ha, fingers faster than brain!

808 nm is green?

All this time I thought it was infrared... ;)

Are you maybe thinking of the very common green 532 nm DPSS laser with an 808 nm GaAlAs pumping diode?

[pax britanica]

Knowing the area where this incident reportedly occured quite well iwas curious to try and locate the area where the laser may have been shone from.

The track at the beginning of this thread shows a easterly departure from LHR 9R and assuming a standard Compton departure the captains estimate of about 8 miles from Heathrow puts the plane just south of Lego land themepark situated in the middle of the crown estate at Windsor. That would fit perfectly with estimates that the laser was 1-2 miles off to one side- ie to the north of track.

So I wonder if this was either an errant laser from a show or an employee testing/fooling around with one. They have a lot of laser shows there and it does seem a bit of a coincidence that this occured not just close to lego land but just the right distance to the south-so maybe just an error on an operaotrs or technicians part.

Not an ideal location for laser shows though being under SID tracks from both easterlyand westerly departures from LHR-presumelably they normally operate restricted power versions

[Capt. Inop]

There are problems with laser protection glasses/goggles, they are not perfect

Far from perfect, as in Boeings like the B737 and B777 with lcd or led displays you will be unable to read them.

[enola-gay]

At last a rational explanation, thank you for researching that.

Would you mind sending that explanation to the BBC who are drooling at the idea of high powered l@sers in the hands of Windsor toffs bringing down aircraft.

[Airclues]

They have a lot of l@ser shows there

Legoland is closed until March.

[LlamaFarmer]

Legoland is closed until March.

To the public I presume?

Any chance they might be undergoing any testing/training/other there currently before reopening in March?



Not at all suggesting this is the likely source of the laser, merely open to considering all possibilities at this stage

[enola-gay]

Sorry Airclues. the place is open:

February half term Junior Builder Week at the LEGOLAND Resort Hotel will take place from 12th — 20th February from just £140 per family!

[pax britanica]

I actually did wonder if the place was open this early not realsiing it was indeed half term hence my comments about 'testing'. What does interest me is what sort of lasers they use because the pics on the web look pretty spectacular but as I pointed out tis just to the north of the Compton SIDs for easterlies and ty much over it at the point where the 27R SID is in a right turn to pick up the track to Compton.

All that said I am sure legoland would have had to pass some kind of check on laser shows as it is so close to LHR

[scroggs]

Some of you will know who I am. Most probably don't. However, I am the Captain in this event. I haven't been involved in Pprune for many years, but I used to be very involved, for which I offer apologies if appropriate!

It's been fascinating to read the speculation, and very interesting to read some of the factual postings in this thread. I don't take offence at those who question my decisions - all captains' decisions should be challenged and tested to see if they are indeed appropriate and proportionate, and this forum is as reasonable a place for that to happen as any.

For now, I won't be offering any significant justification or explanation. There's likely to be more investigations to be carried out, and I don't want to pre-empt, prejudge or influence any of those, or compromise my ability to speak freely to those who need to hear what I have to say. I'd just like to thank those who have some faith that I had some idea of what I was doing and why, and those who helped me get the job done both on the ground and in the air.

For those who have any relevant expertise, it was a red beam, not a green one. It was indeed reported as and when it happened. The pictures we got show its ground position (which wasn't Legoland as far as I can see), and will hopefully help those in the know to estimate its power and provenance.

As was reported in the news, the FO did receive retinal damage from what appeared to be a 'lucky' passing sweep, but it's not permanent and will heal fully. There was no visual impairment during the flight, but there was no way of knowing (for me) that that would continue to be the case.. The symptoms were slow in making themselves apparent. That's about all I'm prepared to say for now.

For the terminally pedantic, yes, I admit my Pan call was incorrectly phrased!

[Airbubba]

For those who have any relevant expertise, it was a red beam, not a green one. It was indeed reported as and when it happened. The pictures we got show its ground position (which wasn't Legoland as far as I can see), and will hopefully help those in the know to estimate its power and provenance.

As was reported in the news, the FO did receive retinal damage from what appeared to be a 'lucky' passing sweep, but it's not permanent and will heal fully. There was no visual impairment during the flight, but there was no way of knowing (for me) that that would continue to be the case.. The symptoms were slow in making themselves apparent. That's about all I'm prepared to say for now.


Thanks for the update, we really appreciate it! Great news about the FO's healing prospects. :ok:

For the terminally pedantic, yes, I admit my Pan call was incorrectly phrased!

As you know, endless debates about proper R/T procedures and how to do practice PAN's are classic PPRuNe topics from the 'old' days. It's a cultural thing I would say. ;)

[underfire]

Good Form scroggs!

i am wondering why the ac cockpit windows cannot be coated with the same material as military ac and equipment against laser.
In the military, many of the weapons systems use lasers for rangefinding and guidance, and I know the gunsights and windows/ports on tanks are coated to reflect the laser from direct and return, with no optical reduction.
They also use this coating on building windows so that a laser cannot be used to listen to conversations inside.

Edit: Found this on a lab website..

A laser is a light source that can be dangerous to people exposed to it. Even low power lasers can be hazardous to a person's eyesight. The coherence and low divergence of laser light means that it can be focused by the eye into an extremely small spot on the retina, resulting in localised burning and permanent damage in seconds. Certain wavelengths of laser light can cause cataracts or even boiling of the vitreous humor, the fluid in the eyeball. Infrared and ultraviolet lasers are particularly dangerous, since the body's "blink reflex", which can protect an eye from excessively bright light, works only if the light is visible.

egsc_h17....people pull them out of color laser printers..very powerful uncontained.

[wanabee777]

Great job Captain!

Wishing your F/O a speedy recovery!!

[scroggs]

Those are - to me at least - good points, and, as I'm the star player in today's teacup tornado, hopefully I'll get a chance to ask some pertinent and hopefully difficult questions which can be tossed into the melting pot as 'the authorities' temporarily agonise over what to do about this before something else moves their attention elsewhere.

If anyone with authoritative knowledge of mitigation measures which can relatively easily be applied to aircraft would like to PM me, I'm happy to include their contributions to the conversation. Please, I don't want - indeed I will actively reject - casual speculation, 'what-ifs', or otherwise non-expert inputs. I have a temporary but hopefully powerful opportunity to have a say, and I want to make sure that what I say has some weight. I'm well aware that terminal obliteration of the scrotes may be the ideal solution, as well as introducing the sellers of these devices to a man-eating monster of my choice, but it's unlikely I'll persuade anyone to legislate for that. Indeed, it's unlikely I'll persuade the legislators to do anything, and I'll leave that argument to the unions and other interested parties. Right now, I'm interested in what we as operators can do.

[peekay4]

i am wondering why the ac cockpit windows cannot be coated with the same material as military ac and equipment against l@ser.
There have been tests (http://www.lamdaguard.com/lamda-guard-partners-airbus-test-laser-interference-solution-0):

Lamda Guard partners with Airbus to test laser interference solution

Halifax N.S. (June 4, 2014) Lamda Guard, a company based in Atlantic Canada, has signed an agreement with leading aircraft manufacturer Airbus to test a breakthrough innovation designed to deflect unwanted bright light or laser sources from impacting jetliner flight paths, and causing pilot disorientation or injury.

Lamda Guard’s innovative thin films utilize metamaterial technology on cockpit windscreens to selectively block and control light coming from any angle even at the highest power levels.

[Tourist]

Good Form scroggs!

I am wondering why the ac cockpit windows cannot be coated with the same material as military ac and equipment against laser.

Erm, not sure what you are talking about. No aircraft I have ever heard of had laser protective coatings on the windows.
Lasers are very effective against military aircraft which is one reason they are banned I believe. We certainly would never blind an enemy pilot of course. That would be unsportsmanlike.


In the military, many of the weapons systems use lasers for rangefinding and guidance, and I know the gunsights and windows/ports on tanks are coated to reflect the laser from direct and return, with no optical reduction.
They also use this coating on building windows so that a laser cannot be used to listen to conversations inside.


I'm afraid you have been reading bad fiction.
You cannot stop an optical laser without affecting vision through a port.

Lasers used to listen to conversations are bouncing off the window and the vibration of the window causes doppler shift which is detected. Coatings won't change that one iota.

[NiclasB]

Regarding the "safe" energy levels, does anyone know how what the assumptions of the pupil size are? If the "safe" estimates are based on a normal (day adaptation) pupil, wouldn't the resulting figure be an overestimate for a dilated (night adaptation) pupil?

According to wikipedia, a normal diameter of the entrance pupil is about 4mm, ranging from 2mm (bright) to 8mm (dark), so the underestimate might be with a factor between 4-16.

Just my SEK .10.

[fox niner]

Maybe we need to retrofit all aircraft with nuclear blast shades, as installed on the B52:

B-52 Cockpit for Sale, Boeing Stratofortress and other military aviation Memorabilia (http://www.b-52parts.com/b52interior.htm)

That will surely keep our eyes protected?:E

[Sallyann1234]

Thank you scroggs.
Above all, it's good to know there was no permanent injury.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm also very glad to read that there's no permanent injury - and well handled Scroggs and your team, slightly dodgy but perfectly clear Pan call notwithstanding.

An article that appeared last night on The Conversation is somewhat relevant, but offers no particular hope of any quick fixes.

https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-laser-strikes-on-aircraft-each-year-are-a-danger-to-pilots-and-their-passengers-54863



One question from me, that I hope somebody might be able to answer. What's the investigative mechanism for an incident like this?. It clearly wasn't an accident, so presumably it's not AAIB's job. I know that CAA take a deep interest and publish statistics, and I'm sure the police are interested when there's anything for them to usefully go on. Doubtless Virgin and BALPA are also quite interested.

But what's the exact mechanism for investigating, then reporting, attacks on safety like this - if only so that I can bookmark the likely location of any future reports to read when they come out.

G

[LlamaFarmer]

Well done scroggs :ok:

It sounds well handled and you don't have to justify your actions, nobody with any real flying experience would have questioned it.

As for the R/T, I wouldn't worry, it may not have been textbook, but it was perfectly unambiguous.
We practice things over and over, getting them perfectly right, so that on the day we get them "right enough". Nobody could have been in any doubt hearing that call.

Glad to hear it's only temporary injury to the FO, hopefully he is fully recovered and back flying again soon.




I'm glad you are trying to make a difference while you still have some influence, hopefully it is enough for the powers that be to sit up and take note of what is probably one of the biggest external threats to aviation safety after drones.

[IcePack]

The way I understand these coatings is that they do work. But for only a specific light frequency and do create a reduction of tranceperancy. So as useful as a chocolate tea pot then.

[pax britanica]

Capt Scroggs

pardon my speculation about Legoland -it did seem to fit the bill well.

Very glad to hear that your colleague is and will be OK , I am sure he must have been very worried for a while given the importance of eyesight in your job.

[Tech Guy]

Regarding the "safe" energy levels, does anyone know how what the assumptions of the pupil size are? If the "safe" estimates are based on a normal (day adaptation) pupil, wouldn't the resulting figure be an overestimate for a dilated (night adaptation) pupil?

According to wikipedia, a normal diameter of the entrance pupil is about 4mm, ranging from 2mm (bright) to 8mm (dark), so the underestimate might be with a factor between 4-16.

The HSE document HSg95 (The Radiation Safety of Lasers Used For Display Purposes) has a section on calculating MPE levels. They recommend using a 7mm pupil diameter. This is due to most laser shows taking place at night or inside darkened venues.

[Tech Guy]

Regarding Legoland, as an entertainment based organisation (and I suspect their operations are highly professional) I would expect them to be aware of the requirements for using lasers and searchlights outside and therefore notified the CAA with the relevant paperwork to obtain prior authorisation.

I have used high powered lasers argon lasers (up to 12 watts) and pulsed Copper Bromide lasers (8KW pep) outdoors and often close (under 2 miles laterally of extended runway centreline) to airports. At all times I had complied with CAA and ATC requirements and never had any issues. Although as a professional working in this field, we were far more aware of the consequences and repercussions if we got it wrong.

[atakacs]

The track at the beginning of this thread shows a easterly departure from LHR 9R and assuming a standard Compton departure the captains estimate of about 8 miles from Heathrow puts the plane just south of Lego land themepark situated in the middle of the crown estate at Windsor. That would fit perfectly with estimates that the l@ser was 1-2 miles off to one side- ie to the north of track.

Sorry if i missed it but do we have now a firm confirmation that the aircraft was around 8000ft ? If so it must have a very powerful beam, something way beyond what could be laying around Legoland...

[Airbubba]

Sorry if i missed it but do we have now a firm confirmation that the aircraft was around 8000ft ? If so it must have a very powerful beam, something way beyond what could be laying around Legoland...

The link of Shannon ATC audio I posted on the first page of the thread seems to have gone dead.

Here's a new link to the LiveAtc.net audio, the report of the position of the laser incident is at 2:00 into this nicely edited clip:

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13008.0;attach=8695

Sounds to me like he said they were on the LON 220 (or 230?) radial at 13 miles, 8000 feet, heading 275. But, I'm not so sure now with the foreign (to a hillbilly like me ;)) accents.

If Captain Scroggs is unable to comment on specifics at the present time I certainly understand.

[underfire]

Erm, not sure what you are talking about. No aircraft I have ever heard of had l@ser protective coatings on the windows.
l@sers are very effective against military aircraft which is one reason they are banned I believe. We certainly would never blind an enemy pilot of course. That would be unsportsmanlike.

Check the US attack helicopters, they use laser for rangefinding and guidance.


I'm afraid you have been reading bad fiction.
You cannot stop an optical l@ser without affecting vision through a port.

I am afraid you havent been reading at all. The US main battle tanks have a very powerful laser rangefinder that goes to 5000m. I was on those tanks, and we tested them by burning holes in playing cards at 50m. For obvious reasons, the laser is not in the visible spectrum. All weapons sights and vision blocks are protected. Look online and see the wide range of laser safe glasses, it is just a coating on the glass, and many are clear.

l@sers used to listen to conversations are bouncing off the window and the vibration of the window causes doppler shift which is detected. Coatings won't change that one iota.

Not true, look at the coatings of the windows at DMAAC. The coating is specifically for laser listening devices. The coating has a radially diffuse pattern that scatters the laser, rather than allowing it to return. No return, no doppler shift.

http://i67.tinypic.com/2i8al4k.jpg

[parabellum]

Interesting question Genghis. I don't know the answer so I'll keep my two penneth brief. I suspect it will all kick off with a MOR, then all agencies with an interest will become involved, CAA, police, AAIB (accident prevention) and ATC for starters, plus Virgin.

[CONSO]

Not true, look at the coatings of the windows at DMAAC.Suggestion - when one uses an acronym, especially out of range of the subject matter or blog participants- try spellIng it out at least the first time.


You probably meant the Defense Mapping agency aerospace center ?? :ugh:

And where do we find info on window coatings of that agency ?

This definition appears very rarely and is found in the following Acronym Finder categories:


Military and Government
Organizations, NGOs, schools, universities, etc.

[Tourist]

Underfire.

I don't think you are really making sense.

Laser rangefinders that are not in the visible spectrum can of course be blocked without causing optical degradation through a port. This cannot be done for a visible laser for the simple reason that visible lasers are in the visual spectrum. To stop them you must block that bit of the visible spectrum. This, by definition degrades the optics.
Any goggles are exactly the same, and unless they block multiple frequencies will only protect against one laser frequency despite there being many out there.

Re the window coatings to protect against listening in.

B@llocks. Some energy will be reflected back, and that's all you need.

[yeoman]

Quote from PDR and I can't remember how to do quotes, can't be bothered to find out and am even less bothered to provide much by way of justification for my post. It happened.

I was lasered recently at 7000' near MAN

Can you provide any independent cites for this? I'm just baulking a little bit at the marksmanship required to target an aeroplane's cockpit windows from a range of several miles and would like some confirmation that it actually happens (and with what equipment).


No I can't. I just made it up because I was feeling left out.:rolleyes:

[wanabee777]

Just brainstorming here...

Maybe positioning a tethered balloon/blimp, with laser detection and precise locating ability, in areas of known attacks on aircraft would help in apprehending the perpetrators so they could be prosecuted.

I assume the military must already have such equipment.

[Ancient-Mariner]

Just read at Pope's plane reports laser flash during Mexico landing - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35603813) that the Pope's plane has been l@sered just prior to landing at Mexico City.


Cheers!

[pax britanica]

returning to my Legoland speculation I too would be absolutely amazed if their displays were not very thoroughly checked and approved by CAA and possibly other agencies.

What does intrigue me is the , no doubt informed comment, that their lasers would not represent any threat to aircraft as they wouldnt reach that kind of height. Seeing as they put on quite spectacular display leads me to ask what on earth reason would an individual have ,or be able to obtain, something much more powerful and potentially dangerous than that used in a major entertainment complex where they no doubt have competent professional people operating their system

[Linedog]

Hull police get a result.

Hull man jailed for laser attack on police helicopter - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-35607559)

Hull man jailed for laser attack on police helicopter

[MATELO]

I assume the military must already have such equipment.

They do, however, its normally attached to something.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/06CA939A_F338_C863_AE78AF3CA29B8D49.jpg

[markredgwell]

A So called aviation expert has just Tarred all plane spotters as Nuts Pointing Lasers at Planes (Has he seen any one Doing this?)

"Aviation expert Julian Bray said so-called aircraft spotters would play "laser tagging" games, where they would try to shine a beam onto the fuselage of an aircraft."

I see some one Pointing a Laser at any Kind of flying machine 999 is my 1st response my 2nd :mad::mad:

Virgin Atlantic flight back in UK after 'laser incident' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35575861)

[scroggs]

I'd like to thank everyone for their interest in this topic. While some of the submissions have been a bit beyond what is reasonable and realistic, both publicly and privately I've received some really useful stuff - and some of it will, as a result, end up in front of those who make, or who influence, policy. That's a result as far as I'm concerned.

Today we said a final goodbye to one of the greatest Ppruners, Don Daines. Don bust every sinew he had to make sure that the best of our Wannabes got an opportunity to fly, and he and we put real cash into that project. I know that he'd have been horrified that people were trying to externally affect pilots in the air.

[G-CPTN]

Man weeps as he is jailed for shining laser pen at police helicopter - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-weeps-jailed-shining-laser-7403090)

[Scuffers]

They do, however, its normally attached to something.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/06CA939A_F338_C863_AE78AF3CA29B8D49.jpg

err... NO.

that's a laser guided munition, it follows a laser designated target, it does not have a laser itself, the designator is the laser, like these:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKwnx3X2DxTDcaHFjM-otRR27-40e2VmYifIp3-KrxRqH3rK-B

or

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_LLDR_lg.jpg

[Mad Monk]

If an aircraft is at 7000/8000 feet, how is one able to 'fire' a beam into the cockpit from ground level ?
I bought a green low power unit for my photography, mainly distance target acquisition for wildfowl and astronomy; I would never dream of putting one in the direction of an aircraft, but at 30 miles would I know it was there ?

[Capt Scribble]

You might look at the flight radar app and have an idea of where an aircraft might be but high level strikes are just luck. There is a lot of hurumphing about lasers and their effects but generally they are of no significance. Not saying so in this case, its unusual in that it is red and I am sure that high power equipment can be obtained. But when I see a flash I just look away and have never experienced and ill effects, my FO was apparently dazzled for a short while.

[Fortissimo]

Capt Scribble

Do you not see any contradiction between "they are of no significance" and "my FO was apparently dazzled for a short while"? And if they are of no significance, why is it an offence under the ANO and why have there been prosecutions for endangerment (article 137) as well as the summary offence (article 222) of directing or shining a light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot? Why is it OK to limit someone's vision for any period of time at all, especially when flying?

Dazzle can be classed as a temporary injury (= ABH); some people who have been struck by lasers have had dazzle effects which have lasted for several hours. Some are more susceptible to this than others, and it will also depend on laser power and proximity. Injury symptoms beyond the initial dazzle can also develop with time - this is the same effect as with sunburn, where exposure to the sun and finding out how badly you have burnt yourself can be hours apart.

I am pleased to know you suffered no ill effects from your laser strikes (others have not been lucky) and hope you reported them as required by the MOR scheme and now by EC 376/2014. ;)

[bbrown1664]

I am in no way saying that its not possible or that the miscreants should not be "seen to" but......

Some little scrote with a hand held laser pointer is going to be lucky to get his beam the length of a football field. Even if he does manage it, he has to be in the right place with the right elevation with a very steady hand to actually hit someone on the head in the cockpit when the pilots are sat back from the windows.
Even more lucky to get them in the eye which, as has already been pointed out, has a diameter of less than 10mm.

So from a distance of a couple of miles, allowing for the angle they would need to be at, they would need a military grade guidance laser on a steady tripod.


There is more to this story than is being published. Some of it, unfortunately looks like some pilots are swinging the lead a little. Maybe they did see a laser spot in the cockpit but it is almost impossible to actually have been hit in the eyes with it. It certainly doesn't happen for real as often as it is being reported.

That said, as I said at the beginning. The scrotes that shine the lasers at anything other than their own eyes or a whiteboard need to be "dealt with".

[under_exposed]

Even if it is a million to one shot don't forget there are more than a million little sh1ts out there.

[Union Jack]

The link in G-CPTN's Post #204 includes the statement that:

"A court heard he bought the pen online from China to entertain his dog but shone it into the sky after becoming bored of waiting for a takeaway."

indicates that the accused has even greater Darwinian potential both if he gets so bored so quickly, and does not realise that "entertaining" his dog in this way can lead to very distressing behaviour with the dog reacting even to shadows and flashes of sunlight.

Jack

[LlamaFarmer]

I am in no way saying that its not possible or that the miscreants should not be "seen to" but......

Some little scrote with a hand held laser pointer is going to be lucky to get his beam the length of a football field. Even if he does manage it, he has to be in the right place with the right elevation with a very steady hand to actually hit someone on the head in the cockpit when the pilots are sat back from the windows.
Even more lucky to get them in the eye which, as has already been pointed out, has a diameter of less than 10mm.

So from a distance of a couple of miles, allowing for the angle they would need to be at, they would need a military grade guidance laser on a steady tripod.


There is more to this story than is being published. Some of it, unfortunately looks like some pilots are swinging the lead a little. Maybe they did see a laser spot in the cockpit but it is almost impossible to actually have been hit in the eyes with it. It certainly doesn't happen for real as often as it is being reported.

That said, as I said at the beginning. The scrotes that shine the lasers at anything other than their own eyes or a whiteboard need to be "dealt with".

Have you ever been hit by a laser?

I have. I've never claimed to be hit directly in the eye, because I don't think I have, but I have been targeted and it can be excruciatingly painful and temporarily blinding just having it hit the cockpit windows, never mind specifically targeting you directly in the eye.


Plus all it takes is a wave in the general direction for a minute or so and you'd probably get at least a few dangerously distracting flashes.



These bigger more powerful handheld lasers are more like full-size Maglights than the little tiny pointers most of us are probably used to from use in presentations... it's probably much easier to hold steady or rest against something in order to make it more accurate

[Chris Griffin]

Bbrown1664

"Certainly doesn't happen for real as often as it is being reported". That's rather a sweeping generalisation. What facts do you base that on?

Accusing pilots of "swinging the lead" is very disappointing indeed based on your opinion alone. I certainly hope you're never put in the position where you're dazzled, confused and in pain all by the hands of some IQ challenged miscreant.

[Fortissimo]

1. Reporting. We know numbers are less than reported because BALPA had a survey done which showed half their members had been hit at least once and that only about 2/3 of the attacks were actually MOR'd. Air Pilots came up with similar stats. Don't forget half the CAT traffic in the UK is from overseas, and they report to their own NAA; if they don't call it to ATC it doesn't show on the UK stats.

2. If you have seen a laser flash, it has by definition hit you in the eye. An oblique laser strike that you perceive in your peripheral vision will hit the relevant portion of your retina and if it is strong enough, that is where you will have your injury. If you were looking at it directly, then it will (if strong enough) affect your central vision.

3. Test purchases have been examined by specialist labs in the last few months. Result, there is at least one 3W hand-held device in the UK, bought easily over the Internet and fortunately in the care of a responsible organisation.

[G-CPTN]

BA flight targeted by high-powered laser in second attack near Heathrow in 10 days (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ba-flight-targeted-by-highpowered-laser-in-second-attack-near-heathrow-in-10-days-a3186746.html).

Man questioned over laser attack on police helicopter (From Worcester News) (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/14291946.UPDATED__Man_questioned_over_laser_attack_on_police _helicopter/).

Laser attack suspects caught on camera and arrested by Police (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3460036/BA-flight-Amsterdam-targeted-powerful-laser-came-land-Heathrow-second-attack-plane-near-London-airport-just-ten-days.html).

[pjac]

Do you realize that a laser beam can blind birds as equally, it can, humans. Whilst trying to target a bird, the beam needs only a little time to damage (permanently)-the eye.

[Flying Lawyer]

bbrown1664

Some of it, unfortunately looks like some pilots are swinging the lead a little. Maybe they did see a l@ser spot in the cockpit but it is almost impossible to actually have been hit in the eyes with it. It certainly doesn't happen for real as often as it is being reported.


Are you, or have you ever been, a pilot?
If yes, what category of pilot (airline, helicopter, PPL etc) and when?

I ask because your profile says you are an ex-Avionics Engineer and now an "IT Consultant" and I wonder upon what expertise/experience you see fit to suggest that "some pilots are swinging the lead" and to accuse others of lying.

[bbrown1664]

Whether I have ever been a pilot is not relevant to the topic though as an avionics engineer and IT engineer I have had the need to play with fibre optics and lasers on a professional level.

The point I was making, and still stands is that the chances of being hit in the head, let alone the eye, are slim.
Whilst you may see laser beams cutting through the air, the chance of it hitting you in the eye still remain slim.

I am not in any way saying that these incidents do not happen. I just feel they are not as prolific (in terms of hits to the eyes) as some people are making out.

As I said before, the scrotes (for those that don't understand this word, this means the little gits on the ground with the lasers) should not be pointing them at you lot at the pointy end, or indeed anywhere other than their own eyes and anyone found guilty of doing so, should be punished.

[Flying Lawyer]

Whether I have ever been a pilot is not relevant to the topic.


Is that a No?

[Fortissimo]

It would seem from your last post that you don't understand how eyes work. If the beam is visible to you, you are detecting light dissipated from the beam by diffraction or reflection. If you get the beam 'end-on' full in the eye, you get the highest amount of energy from it (IR and visible) and it will be focused onto your retina whether you like it or not. Beam dispersion will mean you don't cop all the energy in the beam, but if the beam hits the flight deck (and it often does) then you can expect one or both pilots to be affected. It is worse in helicopters.

The other factor is dazzle, which can come from a direct hit but also from reflections of canopies, windshields, instruments etc. When the flight deck lights up in that way, it is also very distracting. The pilots here will tell you that distraction is a frequent component of the causal chain ending in accidents or serious incidents.

I hope that explains it. If you are having trouble with the concept, I am sure Mr Darwin would endorse you having a play with a mirror and your own laser pointer.

[Tourist]

It would seem from your last post that you don't understand how eyes work.

Equally, it would seem that you don't understand how Lasers and indeed physics works.

Read the various posts on the other thread from people who work with lasers for a living.
Hand held lasers distracting to pilots of an airliner at height, certainly.
Hand held lasers damaging eyes of pilots of an airliner at height? I think not.

[Chesty Morgan]

Physical eye damage isn't the only issue.

[MATELO]

@ scuffers.

that's a l@ser guided munition, it follows a l@ser designated target, it does not have a l@ser itself, the designator is the l@ser, like these:

I am well aware its not a laser, but connected to the front of the munition, is a laser sensor, hence the the words I wrote in post #201 "They do, however, its normally attached to something".

Which in turn was reply to Wannabe777 post #197

Just brainstorming here...

Maybe positioning a tethered balloon/blimp, with laser detection and precise locating ability, in areas of known attacks on aircraft would help in apprehending the perpetrators so they could be prosecuted.

I assume the military must already have such equipment.

Being a jovial type of chap, I was making lighthearted post, implying the military's response to said laser louts.

[wanabee777]

@ scuffers.



I am well aware its not a laser, but connected to the front of the munition, is a laser sensor, hence the the words I wrote in post #201 "They do, however, its normally attached to something".

Which in turn was reply to Wannabe777 post #197



Being a jovial type of chap, I was making lighthearted post, implying the military's response to said laser louts.

I thought the concept was on the right track.:)

[beardy]

Physical eye damage isn't the only issue

What other problems (issues if you prefer) would prompt the commander to decide to dump fuel and return to base?

[Chris Griffin]

Fortissimo

I have a feeling you and I have spoken/emailed. The comment:

" I am sure Mr Darwin would endorse you having a play with a mirror and your own laser pointer."

..... is not cool.

[glad rag]

Bickering aside, any news of the injured parties recovery?

[RichardBeeb]

Hi..to be up front I'm the Transport Correspondent at the Beeb. Richard Westcott. I'm interested in doing more on this issue, now the dust has settled a little..to give you an idea, I've already done quite a bit on drone dangers Radar developed to detect small drones - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32572545) . To be clear I love aviation, I spoke at the AAIB's recent 100th anniversary conference, we make balanced films about the issues. No hype. I appreciate that you're not keen to be bombarded..totally get that. But could we have a chat, not for quoting or anything, just so I can get some facts on what happened. I'm at [email protected]. As I say, not for quoting, I'm just keen to pick your brains. Think it's an important issue...want to raise more awareness. All the best. R

[PashaF]

Well.. This is not aviation related experience, however, if someone will choose to use really powerful device, it probably will be like this.

So, this happened literally with me. Long story short, infrared soldering station accidentally was switched on.


This is not like some colorful flash in the eye, this is like been hit by heavy object in the face. IMMEDIATELY, it creates all sorts of head trauma effects: dizziness, loss of orientation, headache. And immense adrenaline rush.

[Fortissimo]

Hand held l@sers damaging eyes of pilots of an airliner at height? I think not.

I have not suggested someone is likely to have permanent damage from a laser strike on an airliner at height (unless it was a weapons-grade laser). That would depend on the NOHD (or rather the ED50) and whether you are talking photochemical limits, thermal limits or dual limit boundaries. The FAA has produced an easier interpretation than the NOHD found in the ANSI Z136.1 laser safety standard, and that will show you a 5W green (532nm) unpulsed laser with a 2 mil divergence has an ED50 of about 250 ft. So I get that permanent damage at range is unlikely.

Dazzle is a different matter but it is still something that will reduce your eyesight below the level required by your licence.

My difficulty in all this is that we have a global problem with laser attacks that has prompted Sec Gen ICAO to send a State Letter asking all states to take action, there are criminal acts (lasers attacks) taking place against aviators at the rate of 150 per month or more in the UK, and there are members of the profession who think it's OK and we need do nothing about it. Now that I don't get at all.

And Chris Griffin, you are right, the Darwin remark was born of frustration but was indeed uncool...

[Flying Lawyer]

RichardBeebThink it's an important issue ... Yes, very.Want to raise more awareness ... Yes, in the interests of flight safety.

I'm not in a position to give you the facts of the Virgin incident. However, I am able to give you background information which I hope will assist your research, or at least point you in the right direction.

Aiming lasers at aircraft creates a serious safety risk and has become a world-wide problem.
Reported incidents of lasers aimed at aircraft have increased dramatically world-wide in the past 10 years. Up to date stats are readily available from the CAA (UK), the FAA (USA), CASA (Australia) and almost certainly from other aviation regulators.
The increase in reports is due to various factors which include a greater awareness by pilots of the importance of reporting laser incidents, the ready availability of laser devices on the internet, stronger power devices that can strike aircraft at higher altitudes and the introduction of green lasers.
Whilst almost anything is theoretically possible, the suggestion by a few people here that the number of incidents reported is inflated by pilots making false reports is absurd. On the contrary, it is well known that many incidents are still not being reported because 'no harm was done'.

The risk of retinal injury, temporary or permanent, is just one factor.

Loss of Night Vision
Research shows that pilots need approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt to dark conditions for night flying, although most adaptation occurs in the first 5-10 minutes.
When struck by a laser beam, a pilot will suffer a loss of night vision. The degree and duration of loss depends primarily upon the intensity of the beam, the colour, the direction (straight into the pilot's eyes or offset) and the duration of exposure to the beam.
Even a low powered laser light in a pilot’s eyes can cause glare – an inability to see past the light.
At higher power levels, it can also cause temporary flash-blindness and after-images.
When a laser beam hits the windscreen of a cockpit, or the bubble of a helicopter, imperfections in and on the glass spread the light out even more.
When it strikes plexiglass, the light disperses even more throughout the cockpit – and can 'cloud' the bubble of some helicopters.

Distraction
It's all very well for some people to say from the safety of their armchairs that the risk of eye damage is low. That is little or no comfort to pilots struck by a laser beam who, in addition to being distracted by discomfort, will entirely naturally be worried that damage has been caused to their eye(s) – which might also mean the end of their career through loss of their medical.
A worried pilot is a distracted pilot.
A distracted pilot is not a safe pilot.

The danger created by the above factors during critical phases of flight - landings and take-offs together with the associated potential for having to carry out emergency procedures/manoeuvres - is obvious.

Helicopters
In the UK, Police helicopters flying at night are particularly vulnerable to laser attacks. In the US, emergency medical services helicopters are also targeted.
You'll need to check the following with a police pilot/air support unit.
My understanding, based upon some flights with the Metropolitan Police, is that operations over London are typically carried out at low level (approximately 1000’) and either in an orbit at low speed (40-60 knots) or in the hover.
Accurate control of the flight path is most demanding at low speed or in a hover. Coupled with engine power being close to limits, a pilot's workload is at its highest in these regimes.
Further, the nature of Police operations requires that helicopters have to be able to descend below the height of fixed lit obstructions - subject to them being visible to the pilot and that he/she is able to maintain a 100m lateral separation.
At the very least, even an offset beam from a low powered device will be a distraction to the pilot who needs to maintain a flight path clear of contact with obstacles. At worst, a high-powered beam can completely destroy night vision.
If that happens, the pilot will no longer be able to see his instruments (speed, height, attitude, heading etc), nor outside cues to safely determine vertical and/or lateral separation from obstructions in order to maintain separation from them. The pilot will initiate a pre-planned emergency evasive manoeuvre, instinctively increasing height in a direction he hopes will avoid colliding with nearby obstacles and hoping that his night vision will recover sufficiently quickly not to lose control of the helicopter.

It is only because of pilots' skill, training and good luck that there has not been a serious incident or fatal accident - yet.

Punishment of offenders
The prevalence of lasers being aimed at aircraft has led, in several countries, to the creation of specific offences which do not require the prosecution to prove an intention to endanger the aircraft - or even recklessness.

America
Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft … or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. (18 U.S.C. § 39A)

UK
A person must not in the United Kingdom direct or shine any light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot of the aircraft. (Article 222 of the Air Navigation Order)
It is a 'summary only' offence which means that it can be dealt with only in the Magistrates Court (not by a Judge in the Crown Court) and the maximum penalty is a fine.
Deterrent?

.

[airsound]

Flying Lawyer - Helicopters

Probably obvious to regular PPRuNers, maybe not to everyone - but many helos flying over cities are single pilot operations, unlike the airliners we've been hearing about lately.

Hence any incapacitation may prove rapidly fatal.

[Flying Lawyer]

Thank you.

I should have made that clear.

In particular, police helicopters in London are single pilot ops.

[LlamaFarmer]

Valid point airsound.


Airliners tend to get targeted side-on or at an angle to the flight path, rather than head-on, so that probably tends to affect one pilot more than the other, meaning that one is less incapacitated than the other.

Aside from off-shore helicopters and military helicopters, there tends to be little multi crew rotary ops in the UK, much more likely to be single pilot, and incapacitation of the only pilot, at low level is a much more serious situation.

[Chesty Morgan]

What other problems (issues if you prefer) would prompt the commander to decide to dump fuel and return to base?

You'll have to ask him that question. Not only will I not answer for him but I am not in receipt of all of the specifics concerning this incident as I wasn't there.

[Tech Guy]

It might be useful to point out a little bit about laser injuries and their physical manifestation. If a laser pointer of sufficient power to cause injury at close range was to be directed against the back of your hand, you would suffer a burn injury. It would be similar to holding a fine tipped soldering iron against the skin. You would receive a localised burn that may be quite deep and would blister over. It would certainly be painful, but the cause of the injury, would be from intense localised heat. An eye injury would be similar and cause a retinal burn over a small area.

At a greater distance and allowing for the beam to diverge, the danger from a heat injury is reduced. The nature of the injury would change to that of an "optical flash burn", similar to arc eye suffered by welders, of women who frequent tanning salons without the correct protective goggles. In these cases, this is more likely the type of injury to be caused by these laser incidents. Having suffered a flash type injury (intense UV light source from an HID lamp) I can attest to them being very painful (burning sensation and gritty FOD feeling) and disorienting as are most eye injuries and medical attention is indeed warranted.

In both cases, the eye will heal, although the small diameter beam injury can leave permanent damage. I have a colleague who suffered an argon laser eye injury and has a (very small) permanent black spot in his vision. This was from a 2.5 watt laser at a distance of about 50 cm though and argon lasers have much tighter collimated beams than laser pointers do.

So yes, lasers can injure, but at distance, it will more likely be a temporary flash injury as opposed to a more permanent heat initiated burn injury.

[Tech Guy]

This photo might also provide a useful frame of reference. It shows a single laser beam in a corridor. Notice how much glow and green light it radiates in the immediate area. Now imagine being in a dark cockpit with your eyes adjusted to the night and this suddenly happens. Your world will quite literally and unexpectedly turn green. Your automatic reaction is to close your eyes, or at the very least you will blink a few times while trying to get accustomed to the visual overload. Whatever you were concentrating on is going to be severely compromised.

http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/k_n/laser.jpg

[beardy]

Chesty Morgan,
You stated that physical eye damage isn't the only issue. The title of this thread refers to one particular incident, are you speculating or asserting that something else is at play?

[Chesty Morgan]

Correct, it isn't and I'm doing neither. I'm pointing out that physical eye damage is not the only problem associated with laser attacks.

It's not difficult to understand.

[beardy]

Brilliant, so illuminating, if cryptic.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Would you kindly expand: apart from physical eye damage what are the problems you wish link to the incident in the thread title. Having suffered a laser 'attack' I am interested in your views.

[Heliport]

beardyBrilliant, so illuminating, if cryptic.

His answers to your questions are very clear.

He agrees he said physical eye damage isn't the only issue and that is still his view. Mine too.

He's neither speculating or asserting that something else is at play in the Virgin incident.

The discussion moved on some time ago from the Virgin incident to a wider discussion about the dangers created by idiots with lasers.

[Tourist]

Yet despite all the talk, these pilots still managed to fly without being too distracted.
These guys are not at 1000s of feet, and it is not a single pointer yet they are fine.

Something does not add up.

er3GjmTaNVw

OeMMKmC5OOo

[beardy]

I was illuminated by a green laser at less than 2 miles final at night at Manchester, I was unfortunate enough to look right into the beam. I was lucky, I suffered no pain, a little temporary blindness equivalent to loss of night vision, but no eye damage. I was startled by the incident. It was the FOs leg, the autopilot was engaged, we landed without further incident. The experience was, in my opinion, directly comparable to a nearby lightning flash (which I have also experienced) although the duration of the intense light was shorter than that from lightning. ATC were informed, an MOR was filed, the police investigated, no culprits were found.

I didn't get eye damage, I didn't experience any other problems other than a little temporary blindness which was no more than loss of night vision. Even had it been single pilot operations the landing would not have been interrupted.

Had there been pain, long term blindness or eye damage the outcome could have been very different.

The case of police and helimed operations could probably be very different, I can't comment on them because I have no experience of them.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't know if anybody here but me has read the official investigation report into the loss of the Titanic. I think it's relevant to what some people are saying here...

This is from a section headed "actions that should have been taken". The bold is mine. The whole report is here (http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/botRep01.php)

It was shown that for many years past, indeed, for a quarter of a century or more, the practice of liners using this track when in the vicinity of ice at night had been in clear weather to keep the course, to maintain the speed and to trust to a sharp look-out to enable them to avoid the danger. This practice, it was said, had been justified by experience, no casualties having resulted from it. I accept the evidence as to the practice and as to the immunity from casualties which is said to have accompanied it. But the event has proved the practice to be bad. Its root is probably to be found in competition and in the desire of the public for quick passages rather than in the judgment of navigators. But unfortunately experience appeared to justify it. In these circumstances I am not able to blame Captain Smith. He had not the experience which his own misfortune has afforded to those whom he has left behind, and he was doing only that which other skilled men would have done in the same position. It was suggested at the bar that he was yielding to influences which ought not to have affected him; that the presence of Mr. Ismay on board and the knowledge which he perhaps had of a conversation between Mr. Ismay and the Chief Engineer at Queenstown about the speed of the ship and the consumption of coal probably induced him to neglect precautions which he would otherwise have taken. But I do not believe this. The evidence shows that he was not trying to make any record passage or indeed any exceptionally quick passage. He was not trying to please anybody, but was exercising his own discretion in the way he thought best. He made a mistake, a very grievous mistake, but one in which, in face of the practice and of past experience, negligence cannot he said to have had any part; and in the absence of negligence it is, in my opinion, impossible to fix Captain Smith with blame. It is, however, to be hoped that the last has been heard of the practice and that for the future it will be abandoned for what we now know to be more prudent and wiser measures. [B]What was a mistake in the case of the "Titanic" would without doubt be negligence in any similar case in the future.

It seems to me that all those saying "but no crashes have been caused" or "no pilots have been permanently blinded" are in the same place intellectually as those who in, say, 1910, were quite happy about the occasional close encounter with no collision when steaming through fields of icebergs.

[Chesty Morgan]

...I was lucky...

So the basis of suggesting laser attacks aren't that bad really are based on your experience in which you admit you were lucky. How did it feel being blind on short final?

Had it been a more powerful laser you may not have been so lucky.
Had you got a longer exposure you may not have been so lucky.
Had it happened to the PF you may not have been so lucky.
Had you missed something during your temporary blindness you may not have been so lucky.
Had you done something incorrectly during your temporary blindness you may not have been so lucky.
Had your temporary blindness lasted longer you may not have been so lucky.
Etc..

How do you know that a single pilot would have achieved the same outcome whilst being blind?

[beardy]

Yes I was lucky in that I suffered no injury, the safe landing wasn't down to luck, nor did I suggest that. I didn't say that all laser attacks aren't that bad, just that mine wasn't as catastrophic as many people assume that they are. I know that my experiences are not uncommon.

As for your other points, in turn:

I wasn't blinded, I had a flash and temporary loss of night vision. Have you seen the runway lights at Manchester, if you had you would know that they are so bright that they too destroy your night vision.

If it had been a more powerful laser I may or may not have been so lucky, I don't know, it wasn't, nor would I know what was being used.

I think that without sight stabilisation and a good aiming device most, if not all laser illuminations of airborne aircraft will be fleeting. That's not to say that a bad man won't have these at his disposal, but most civilian events are from casual idiots.

As PNF I know that in this circumstance I was not incapacitated and could have acted as PF.

See point 1

See point 1

Very true, had I done something incorrect then the outcome may or may not have been so lucky, depending on what it was I had done and at what stage of flight. This hypothetical scenario has too many what ifs.

How do I know that a single pilot could have landed the aircraft in these circumstances? Because I was there and think that this event didn't impede my abilities any more than exposure to a close lightning flash. Quite evidently a single pilot, if blind, couldn't land the aircraft, but that wasn't what happened to me, I wasn't blind.

Genghis,

You have a good point, just because nothing bad has happened yet does not mean that something bad won't happen. I believe that some folk over assess the risk of damage to a pilot's eyes from currently easily available devices, but I am neither an opthalmologist nor a laser energy expert, so I could be wrong. Certainly in single pilot operations IF there is eye damage the outcome could be very poor.

Which all begs the question, what more needs to be done and can be done to mitigate the risk of an accident arising from a laser illumination incident.

[Chesty Morgan]

It's just that you said you suffered temporary blindness. So was it loss of night vision or temporary blindness? They are not the same thing. Bearing in mind you looked right into the beam it would be interesting to note how you suffered no light spots (localised blindness) or flash blindness.

This hypothetical scenario has too many what ifs.

None of them positive.

[beardy]

I remember suffering a loss of night vision, no localised nor flash blindness that I recall as having an affect on the operation. It was very similar to exposure to lightning. Instantly and unexpectedly losing night vision has the feeling of being temporarily blinded especially when looking outside into darkness at night, readjusting to cockpit and runway lighting is not usually a problem.

[Dave's brother]

BBC reporting that a USAF F-15 crew out of RAF Lakenheath was "disorientated" by a laser.

US F-15 Lakenheath crew 'disorientated' after laser targeting - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-35716722)

[LlamaFarmer]

3 mainstream media reports in a very short space of time.

Streisand effect?

[mickjoebill]

Canadian company MTI have been testing a high tech film made with nanoparticles, designed to protect pilots from lasers.

In 2014 they announced tests with Airbus and hoped for a rollout about now.

Any further news on this product or the Airbus trial?

mainstream media reports in a very short space of time.

Investors at work, product launch soon?

[anchorhold]

Breaking news......

Unemployed Wright (35) admitted endangering an aircraft, at an earlier hearing at the city’s magistrates court.

He also accepted the offence put him in breach of a suspended sentence relating to a battery charge.

Sentencing him today, Judge Marcus Tregilgas Davey said: “Your actions caused the pilot to be dazzled and lose concentration – and caused the team to abandon their task which involved a firearms incident. It wasn’t just one time, over a 15 minute period there were a number of bursts. The seriousness of this offence is blindingly obvious".