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.

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!!

@PDR1

For prosecutions - try this......
Three jailed for using laser pens at East Midlands Airport - BBC News

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

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?


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".


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

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

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?

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.

PDR

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.

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.

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.

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:


@Wirbelsturm - wise words, sir

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

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.

PDR1
I disagree entirely with your comments about Gouli.

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.

'E's buggered orf!

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??

Actually all but one of your posts have gone.

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

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

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.

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:

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 ?

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.....

PDRI says:

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.

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.

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.

California Man Walloped With 14-Year Sentence for Shining Laser at Helicopter - US News

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 that the pondlfe scum's sentence was vacated on appeal. Still, five years is a not unsubstantial sentence.

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.

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?

RAT

Can't vouch for accuracy but a quick Google found this:UK Rail Union Warns over Increase in Laser Attacks | News on News

and

Police probe after laser shone at Montrose train driver - The Scotsman

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.

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.

There are options available and being investigated.

Laser Pointer Safety - Protective eyewear for pilots

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

seen_the_box It was.

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

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.

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!

Product Specifications

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 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.

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. :{:{

@RAT 5,

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

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.