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.

Some progress . . .
 

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/i...p3-KrxRqH3rK-B

or

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.co...EC_LLDR_lg.jpg

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 ?

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.

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. ;)

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".

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

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

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

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.

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.

BA flight targeted by high-powered laser in second attack near Heathrow in 10 days.

Man questioned over laser attack on police helicopter (From Worcester News).

Laser attack suspects caught on camera and arrested by Police.

Mad Monk
 

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.

bbrown1664


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.

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.

Is that a No?

bbrown1664
 

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.

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.

Physical eye damage isn't the only issue.

@ 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.:)

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

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.

Lets not forget the important stuff
 

Bickering aside, any news of the injured parties recovery?

Lasers
 

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 . 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

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.

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...

RichardBeeb Yes, very. 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?

.

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.

Thank you.

I should have made that clear.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

beardyHis 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.

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.