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.

<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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

cockpitvisit

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

GOULI
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.

<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...

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)

Just for the record
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ....

GOULI

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.

Wiggy
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

You were temporarily blinded but not temporarily incapacitated?

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.

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.

Have you tried Google?