L@ser attacks on Aircraft
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pilot's eye damaged by 'military' laser shone into cockpit at Heathrow | World news | The Guardian
"A British Airways pilot has reportedly been left with significant damage to his eyesight after a “military-strength” laser was shone into the cockpit of his plane landing at Heathrow,
in what appears to be the most serious laser attack to date in the UK.
The pilot suffered a burned retina in his right eye and has not worked since, according to the head of the British Airline Pilots’ Association (Balpa)."
Reported in several Uk papers today.
"A British Airways pilot has reportedly been left with significant damage to his eyesight after a “military-strength” laser was shone into the cockpit of his plane landing at Heathrow,
in what appears to be the most serious laser attack to date in the UK.
The pilot suffered a burned retina in his right eye and has not worked since, according to the head of the British Airline Pilots’ Association (Balpa)."
Reported in several Uk papers today.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I posted here on 31st Jan 2012 it might be possible to adapt LCD welding goggle/shield technology. For those not familiar, the technology allows the welder clear vision to strike the arc but the goggles/shield becomes almost instantly nearly opaque when a built in sensor detects bright light. The response is less than half a millisecond (sic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding_helmet
There may be reasons why it's not appropriate for cockpit use but I hope they've looked into it. The technology is now under the control of 3M who have the resources to develop something usable.
There may be reasons why it's not appropriate for cockpit use but I hope they've looked into it. The technology is now under the control of 3M who have the resources to develop something usable.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked with lasers...
Anything below 1mW is deemed eye safe, and relies on the natural blink reflex to protect the eye. I also think that lasers of this power would not be much of a distraction at any distance.
Anything above that should be controlled. i.e. not for sale to general public, and classed as firearms, perhaps in a similar way that RIFs (Realistic Imitation Firearms i.e Airsoft weapons) are. In the UK such items already require importers and purchasers to be members of clubs and have an annual database recorded membership.
In relation to 'welding mask windscreens' it could work, or perhaps more achievable - glasses using that technology which could be worn during T/O & landing phases. Whilst they would protect the eyes from permanent damage, they would still leave you blind while they are active. I suppose a G/A or climb could be performed IFR?
Anything below 1mW is deemed eye safe, and relies on the natural blink reflex to protect the eye. I also think that lasers of this power would not be much of a distraction at any distance.
Anything above that should be controlled. i.e. not for sale to general public, and classed as firearms, perhaps in a similar way that RIFs (Realistic Imitation Firearms i.e Airsoft weapons) are. In the UK such items already require importers and purchasers to be members of clubs and have an annual database recorded membership.
In relation to 'welding mask windscreens' it could work, or perhaps more achievable - glasses using that technology which could be worn during T/O & landing phases. Whilst they would protect the eyes from permanent damage, they would still leave you blind while they are active. I suppose a G/A or climb could be performed IFR?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in my bedroom, I can see three lasers that are >100mW without even turning my head. Oh, now I turned my head. There's another one. Another one of a few mW under the TV in the next bedroom. Three more under the TV downstairs.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been on the receiving end of a green lāser attack at night while climbing out of TLV, I can tell you that everyone on the flight deck, including jump seater's and relief pilots, must resist the temptation to look outside in order to try to locate the ground position of the perpetrator.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@MG23 You are only about 100x out in your power levels, pretty close for PPRuNe armchair expert.
Class 2 (<5mW) is the highest you will find in commercial products, and even then they must be shielded from viewing (e.g inside a CD player).
Suggest you read:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety
100mW will cause instant blindness and set fire to your bedroom.
1mW is sufficient for a laser pointer for office use, its just that the imports have been unregulated for too long and Chinese suppliers have no regard for the safety issues.
Class 2 (<5mW) is the highest you will find in commercial products, and even then they must be shielded from viewing (e.g inside a CD player).
Suggest you read:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety
100mW will cause instant blindness and set fire to your bedroom.
1mW is sufficient for a laser pointer for office use, its just that the imports have been unregulated for too long and Chinese suppliers have no regard for the safety issues.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you really claiming we should need a firearms license to own a DVD-burner?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ MG23 I think you are going a little off-topic here. My point was that unregulated sales & import of class 2+ laser pointers is a significant cause of this problem. When catching people who do this is so difficult, regulating the availability of these items which have no home or business use should be addressed.
Yes higher powers are used by professionals, military and industry, in a controlled and regulated manner with the appropriate safety measures.
To address your off-topic points if i must - Yes there are class 3 lasers in DVD burners, but they are of no use to shine at planes. They are not collimated lasers i.e. they dont produce a beam, but rather are focused to a point a few mm from the source. They do produce peak powers approaching 100mW but in pulses for very short periods. Incidentally playing with them without protection is plain stupid, they will cause permanent eye damage. If you feel like trying it please do, it may limit your access to a PC screen.
Yes higher powers are used by professionals, military and industry, in a controlled and regulated manner with the appropriate safety measures.
To address your off-topic points if i must - Yes there are class 3 lasers in DVD burners, but they are of no use to shine at planes. They are not collimated lasers i.e. they dont produce a beam, but rather are focused to a point a few mm from the source. They do produce peak powers approaching 100mW but in pulses for very short periods. Incidentally playing with them without protection is plain stupid, they will cause permanent eye damage. If you feel like trying it please do, it may limit your access to a PC screen.
Last edited by hoss183; 2nd Dec 2015 at 13:58.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laser Christmas Lights
Today my wife brought home a "Laser Chrismas Light". On the ground it is totally cool, lighting up the house in multiple colors in seconds, and eliminating the need to spend hours on the roof stringing conventional Christmas lights.
When I got it positioned, about a 2 minute process, 3 different neighbors came over to ask where she got it. I think these things are on the path to go viral, and I can't imagine the distractions of flying an approach over a city filled with them.
When I got it positioned, about a 2 minute process, 3 different neighbors came over to ask where she got it. I think these things are on the path to go viral, and I can't imagine the distractions of flying an approach over a city filled with them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there's a world of difference between laser pointers and these Cmas lights.
Pointers have a narrow beam divergence, typically 1.5 mrad. This means for a laser beam starting at 1.5mm diameter, at 200 meters, the spot will have expanded to 24cm dia.
Christmas laser lights start (mainly) with a single beam which passes through a random diffraction grating so that the light zips off in multiple directions, Lasers are basically single frequency (monochromatic) so for a multicolour display you need different coloured emitters.
The divergence is many times greater than that of a pointer, so if you have a figure of 10mrad, at 200metres, the beam will be 200cm wide, and the light will be attenuated, err, millions of times. In effect, the light from the laser is spread out over perhaps thousands of points, each one a cone rather than a beam.
Try shining a point source of light into a heap of shattered windscreen glass to see the effect of divergence and diffraction.
Low risk, IMHO.
Pointers have a narrow beam divergence, typically 1.5 mrad. This means for a laser beam starting at 1.5mm diameter, at 200 meters, the spot will have expanded to 24cm dia.
Christmas laser lights start (mainly) with a single beam which passes through a random diffraction grating so that the light zips off in multiple directions, Lasers are basically single frequency (monochromatic) so for a multicolour display you need different coloured emitters.
The divergence is many times greater than that of a pointer, so if you have a figure of 10mrad, at 200metres, the beam will be 200cm wide, and the light will be attenuated, err, millions of times. In effect, the light from the laser is spread out over perhaps thousands of points, each one a cone rather than a beam.
Try shining a point source of light into a heap of shattered windscreen glass to see the effect of divergence and diffraction.
Low risk, IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 76
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laser protection
Lasers operate on fixed wavelengths - the bright green ones that eyes are most sensitive to are at 532nm. Safety glasses exist that strongly attenuate that wavelength without blocking much else. It might be appropriate for flight crews to wear these, or at least have them available.
Last edited by Mesoman; 13th Dec 2015 at 20:45.
From Japan Today today. Some of the common perceptions in the comments are food for thought.
Man arrested over laser aimed at U.S. military aircraft in Okinawa ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
Man arrested over laser aimed at U.S. military aircraft in Okinawa ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
Laser Christmas Lights
On the ground it is totally cool,
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 laser at 1300 feet
Jan 24 2016
The journal Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance has published a paper entitled “Blue Laser 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 laser beam while performing a landing maneuver of a commercial aircraft. At around 1300 ft (396 m), a blue laser 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 laser 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 laser 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 laser injury to a pilot during flight from a laser on the ground.” They believe the blue laser 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 laser 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 laser’s power?
Based on the data provided, it would have taken an exceptionally strong laser to even have a 50/50 chance of causing an eye injury at 1300 ft. We calculate such a laser would be well over 5 watts and possibly 30 or more watts. This is a conservative estimate. It assumes the laser and eye were not moving fast relative to each other — unlikely for a handheld laser aimed at a moving aircraft. It also assumes a relatively tight beam, and that the laser-to-aircraft distance was 1300 ft when it may well have been longer.
As of 2015, the highest power handheld visible lasers sold on the Internet are roughly 3 watts. Sometimes handheld lasers 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 laser 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 laser
2) A higher powered laser in the range 5 to 30+ watts was used, possibly not handheld (e.g., an AC-powered general purpose laser). 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 laser 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 laser-to-aircraft distance was calculated to be 1300 ft. If the former, there would be an additional horizontal distance so the laser 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 laser-to-aircraft distance was 1300 ft.
One of the best-known consumer handheld blue lasers is the Wicked Lasers S3 Arctic, introduced in 2010. It is called a “1-watt” laser but has an actual output around 750 milliwatts (3/4 watt). The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance of this laser, with a 1 milliradian divergence, is 635 feet. This means that beyond 635 feet, there is a “vanishingly small” chance of laser exposure causing a minimally detectable change to the eye, under laboratory conditions when the eye and the laser 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 laser 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 laser could have caused an injury, when the eye and the laser 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 laser exposure causing a minimally detectable change to the eye, under laboratory conditions when the eye and laser are held in fixed positions relative to each other. So what we are looking for is the power of a laser that has an NOHD of 4108 ft. (This is because 1300 ft would be at the 0.316x “50/50” point.)
A laser 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 laser 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 laser 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 laser, the harder it is to make a tight beam. Adding a focusing lens on the front of the laser is not significant at long distances. So it is likely that a multi-watt relatively inexpensive consumer laser 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 laser 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 laser.
Second analysis
LaserPointerSafety.com received a note from a laser 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 laser 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 laser beam would be just at the Maximum Permissible Exposure, at the aircraft windscreen.
What this expert is now guessing is that the laser was 100 to 1000 times more powerful, or around 310 to 3100 watts. For a visible blue laser, this is exceptionally powerful. It would not be a consumer-type handheld laser.
If true — if a blue laser beam was able to cause the injury described in the paper — then it must have been a laser with special characteristics such as high power and tripod tracking, which is unlike almost all other reports of consumer laser misuse.
From laserpointersafety.com
UK: Medical report on commercial pilot injured by blue laser at 1300 feet
Jan 24 2016
The journal Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance has published a paper entitled “Blue Laser 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 laser beam while performing a landing maneuver of a commercial aircraft. At around 1300 ft (396 m), a blue laser 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 laser 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 laser 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 laser injury to a pilot during flight from a laser on the ground.” They believe the blue laser 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 laser 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 laser’s power?
Based on the data provided, it would have taken an exceptionally strong laser to even have a 50/50 chance of causing an eye injury at 1300 ft. We calculate such a laser would be well over 5 watts and possibly 30 or more watts. This is a conservative estimate. It assumes the laser and eye were not moving fast relative to each other — unlikely for a handheld laser aimed at a moving aircraft. It also assumes a relatively tight beam, and that the laser-to-aircraft distance was 1300 ft when it may well have been longer.
As of 2015, the highest power handheld visible lasers sold on the Internet are roughly 3 watts. Sometimes handheld lasers 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 laser 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 laser
2) A higher powered laser in the range 5 to 30+ watts was used, possibly not handheld (e.g., an AC-powered general purpose laser). 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 laser 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 laser-to-aircraft distance was calculated to be 1300 ft. If the former, there would be an additional horizontal distance so the laser 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 laser-to-aircraft distance was 1300 ft.
One of the best-known consumer handheld blue lasers is the Wicked Lasers S3 Arctic, introduced in 2010. It is called a “1-watt” laser but has an actual output around 750 milliwatts (3/4 watt). The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance of this laser, with a 1 milliradian divergence, is 635 feet. This means that beyond 635 feet, there is a “vanishingly small” chance of laser exposure causing a minimally detectable change to the eye, under laboratory conditions when the eye and the laser 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 laser 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 laser could have caused an injury, when the eye and the laser 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 laser exposure causing a minimally detectable change to the eye, under laboratory conditions when the eye and laser are held in fixed positions relative to each other. So what we are looking for is the power of a laser that has an NOHD of 4108 ft. (This is because 1300 ft would be at the 0.316x “50/50” point.)
A laser 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 laser 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 laser 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 laser, the harder it is to make a tight beam. Adding a focusing lens on the front of the laser is not significant at long distances. So it is likely that a multi-watt relatively inexpensive consumer laser 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 laser 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 laser.
Second analysis
LaserPointerSafety.com received a note from a laser 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 laser 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 laser beam would be just at the Maximum Permissible Exposure, at the aircraft windscreen.
What this expert is now guessing is that the laser was 100 to 1000 times more powerful, or around 310 to 3100 watts. For a visible blue laser, this is exceptionally powerful. It would not be a consumer-type handheld laser.
If true — if a blue laser beam was able to cause the injury described in the paper — then it must have been a laser with special characteristics such as high power and tripod tracking, which is unlike almost all other reports of consumer laser misuse.
Your graph ist fort a 5mW Laser....
Quite different story, Idee more powerful lasers are used.
I bought a 20mW from China for some tests...
When switched on it delivered about 30 mW in the first seconds, including infrared parts, which should normaly been filtered out cause the heat can cause additional damage....
50, 100, 200 and more powerful lasers are widely spread.
So your graph may lure into false assumtions.
Flash blindness up to two minutes, leaving a pilot unable to read any instrument can easyly occur up to 3000 feet and higher.....
Been hit myself, luck was, that I was only the Cp-Pilot at the time.
Keep your eyes away if possible!
Quite different story, Idee more powerful lasers are used.
I bought a 20mW from China for some tests...
When switched on it delivered about 30 mW in the first seconds, including infrared parts, which should normaly been filtered out cause the heat can cause additional damage....
50, 100, 200 and more powerful lasers are widely spread.
So your graph may lure into false assumtions.
Flash blindness up to two minutes, leaving a pilot unable to read any instrument can easyly occur up to 3000 feet and higher.....
Been hit myself, luck was, that I was only the Cp-Pilot at the time.
Keep your eyes away if possible!
Reports mention that it is due to be tested by Airbus.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit bored with some time on my hands so went and found the laser geek version of Pprune.
Some very helpful chaps on there pointed me in the direction of various websites which have exactly the info we need.
This one is specifically for pilots and regulators.
Laser Pointer Safety - Different lasers' hazards compared
Laser Pointer Safety - Different lasers' hazards compared
Laser Pointer Safety - Info from the FAA and others on laser light effects
Laser Pointer Safety - Laser safety calculations
A couple of useful and relevant tables
[IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Some very helpful chaps on there pointed me in the direction of various websites which have exactly the info we need.
This one is specifically for pilots and regulators.
Laser Pointer Safety - Different lasers' hazards compared
Laser Pointer Safety - Different lasers' hazards compared
Laser Pointer Safety - Info from the FAA and others on laser light effects
Laser Pointer Safety - Laser safety calculations
A couple of useful and relevant tables
[IMG]
[/IMG][IMG]
[/IMG]