Laser threat defence
Joined: Jul 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 83
From: Germany
In the spirit of hopefully good humoured and constructive exchange of views, I think PDR1 you are guilty yourself of not thinking things through regarding pointing at stars....or was your comment about 9.4 years an attempt at humour? Laser pointers are advertised for this purpose, what they reflect on (presumably something in the atmosphere) someone more knowledgable can no doubt tell us.
Your maths and experience give the debate more substance, but some of your assumptions regarding waggling do not fit with my perception. I may be incredibly unlucky, but I have been targeted many times and it certainly seemed for longer periods than you are suggesting is possible. Just humour me....if these idiots can target the beam reliably (I know you think this unlikely) at what range does your maths suggest it becomes dangerous with the 90mW green laser we discussed earlier?
Your last post went some way to convincing me on the 8000 foot case, but I missed a step explaining why the 300 foot case needed to be divided by eight, probably me, but I missed your logic.
Your maths and experience give the debate more substance, but some of your assumptions regarding waggling do not fit with my perception. I may be incredibly unlucky, but I have been targeted many times and it certainly seemed for longer periods than you are suggesting is possible. Just humour me....if these idiots can target the beam reliably (I know you think this unlikely) at what range does your maths suggest it becomes dangerous with the 90mW green laser we discussed earlier?
Your last post went some way to convincing me on the 8000 foot case, but I missed a step explaining why the 300 foot case needed to be divided by eight, probably me, but I missed your logic.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Bringing a bit of maths in myself.
If you were at FL360, let's say that you were impacted at 45° angle below the horizon, as from directly below you wouldn't enter the cockpit. So from surface, that's about 15km in a straight line.
Firstly atmospheric losses would need something rather bigger than the 5mA handheld I use in a lecture theatre. When I've played with it on a clear day, a few km is all that works at.
Secondly, you were flying I'd guess at around M=0.75, that would map to a groundspeed of about 220m/s. Side on then, to track you, that would need some device that moves the laser at a rate of about 0.8 degrees/second. Achievable, but would require some kind of aiming and tracking device - say a rifle sight attached to the laser, mounted on the top of a tripod.
Let's say that the tracking is achievable to a steadyness of ±1%: I suspect that this would actually be pretty good. At the aeroplane, that would map to a back and forth wobble of ±2.2m: or a couple of times the size of an aircraft side window. In practice, it probably wouldn't be that good and probably back and forth nearer the length of the aeroplane is more likely.
My guess then is, that from where you were sat, that would look very like a wobbly handheld device when, in reality, it was incredibly steady.
G
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
As I am having a rest (not a ban) from the other thread... 
As others have pointed out, optical filters to cut red or green laser light will also affect the visibility of aircraft navigation lights, and ground based lighting. So it is effectively impossible to block laser light while still allowing a pilot to keep an unimpeded visual look out.
However, reflected laser light can be just as damaging as a direct hit, the pilot doesn't need to be looking out the window, a reflection off an instrument could be just as bad.
My suggestion would be for antireflective coatings to be applied to all cockpit glazing and for other materials in the cockpit to be dark or light absorbent matt colours and finishes wherever possible. Micro scratches on the outer surfaces of the cockpit screens also cause issues when back lit by bright light. A hardened coating or polish capable of surviving the rigours of flight could be used to try and smooth out these scratches.
These suggestions wouldn't stop a direct laser hit, but by eliminating reflections the dazzle effect in the cockpit could be reduced significantly.
Alternatively, pilots could take to wearing Raybans 24/7. Wouldn't do much to cut down the laser light, but they would look cool. On a serious note, dark glasses would likely make the problem worse because the eye pupils would be open wider. One of the reasons daytime laser attacks are seldom reported is that the pilot doesn't even notice them against a daylit background, although eye damage could be being caused and going unnoticed.
Interesting figures on the strength and spread of beams from the ground. The first 6000 feet of air above ground is stuffed full of dust, moisture and other particles and attenuates laser light considerably. If a beam is aimed straight up, it appears to cut off rather abruptly after a rather short distance. This is where the quantity dust in suspension from the ground diminishes. As the beam is swung down towards the horizon, it appears to lengthen. This effect is due to the dust being illuminated by and refracting and attenuating the beam. In clear air, a 200mW green laser has a naked eye visible range in excess of 80 miles (demonstrated to 84 miles between mountain tops). At sea level altitudes a range of 10 miles is more likely. A 200mW laser will cause instant and permanent eye damage at ranges of less than a couple of hundred yards. The potential for permanent vision loss diminishes with distance. At a mile or so, the blink reflex and beam spread will prevent permanent injury, although the dazzle effects will be severe and vision will probably be affected for several minutes.
As for an outright ban on lasers? Well the average household has at least five fitted to domestic entertainment systems, CD and DVD players, laser printers, laser levels, laser pointers, etc, etc. These things are not going to disappear.
As others have pointed out, optical filters to cut red or green laser light will also affect the visibility of aircraft navigation lights, and ground based lighting. So it is effectively impossible to block laser light while still allowing a pilot to keep an unimpeded visual look out.
However, reflected laser light can be just as damaging as a direct hit, the pilot doesn't need to be looking out the window, a reflection off an instrument could be just as bad.
My suggestion would be for antireflective coatings to be applied to all cockpit glazing and for other materials in the cockpit to be dark or light absorbent matt colours and finishes wherever possible. Micro scratches on the outer surfaces of the cockpit screens also cause issues when back lit by bright light. A hardened coating or polish capable of surviving the rigours of flight could be used to try and smooth out these scratches.
These suggestions wouldn't stop a direct laser hit, but by eliminating reflections the dazzle effect in the cockpit could be reduced significantly.
Alternatively, pilots could take to wearing Raybans 24/7. Wouldn't do much to cut down the laser light, but they would look cool. On a serious note, dark glasses would likely make the problem worse because the eye pupils would be open wider. One of the reasons daytime laser attacks are seldom reported is that the pilot doesn't even notice them against a daylit background, although eye damage could be being caused and going unnoticed.
Interesting figures on the strength and spread of beams from the ground. The first 6000 feet of air above ground is stuffed full of dust, moisture and other particles and attenuates laser light considerably. If a beam is aimed straight up, it appears to cut off rather abruptly after a rather short distance. This is where the quantity dust in suspension from the ground diminishes. As the beam is swung down towards the horizon, it appears to lengthen. This effect is due to the dust being illuminated by and refracting and attenuating the beam. In clear air, a 200mW green laser has a naked eye visible range in excess of 80 miles (demonstrated to 84 miles between mountain tops). At sea level altitudes a range of 10 miles is more likely. A 200mW laser will cause instant and permanent eye damage at ranges of less than a couple of hundred yards. The potential for permanent vision loss diminishes with distance. At a mile or so, the blink reflex and beam spread will prevent permanent injury, although the dazzle effects will be severe and vision will probably be affected for several minutes.
As for an outright ban on lasers? Well the average household has at least five fitted to domestic entertainment systems, CD and DVD players, laser printers, laser levels, laser pointers, etc, etc. These things are not going to disappear.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
The longest lens on my camera is 1200mm, which will fill the frame with a large aircraft a mile or so away. It's not much short of a miracle if I can keep tracking an aeroplane accuratelyat anything much beyond that - and that has a viewfinder, and I've been taking photographs like that (and before that was a pretty good rifle shot on the range) for several decades.
G
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I don't mean track electronically, I mean use some device to follow the aeroplane's track.
I can track an aeroplane with my camera, or a rabbit across a field with a rifle.
G
I can track an aeroplane with my camera, or a rabbit across a field with a rifle.
G
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Legendary Lighter then Air city, Akron Ohio
One thing PDR is missing is that up-collimators have been shipping on high end laser pointers for a long time. The two milli-Radians he uses in his example are a low end toy at this time. Its easily possible to achieve 0.1 mR with a few external optics.
Laser pointer companies like to cater to their mainly teenager and 20-something customers, and those customers are often into "burning", ie seeing what they can burn with a focused beam, Power, which equates to the teenage desire for more horsepower in muscle cars, and Distance. Distance is becoming more and more popular, which is a problem.
When we do Laser in Airspace Calculations, we look not just at the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance, but the Sensitive Zone Exposure Distance and the Critical Zone Exposure Distance. CZED and SZED are more about what pilots need to worry.
This is not just about laser shows accessing airspace legally, there are Lidar Systems, and Laser Guide Stars for astronomy, and Laser Wind Profilers. The cloud height sensor at most airports is a pulsed infrared laser of very low power. There are also laser based glideslope systems for a variety of applications, including some that are directly visible to the pilots eye (Those are intrinsically safe, btw)
So lets start with NOHD. NOHD is a statistical likelihood that there will be large, observable damage to the retina for a visible laser. Not all retinal burns readily show up in basic ophthalmic testing. It usually takes a retinal profiler to detect small damage, and those machines do not grow on trees. The famed Amsler grid referenced earlier pretty much only shows large scale or very severe laser injury to the eye.
For the record, it is often possible to discolor the proteins in the back of the retina and do damage that heals, as well as permanent damage.
So each case must be evaluated on a case by case basis.
A quick approximation for NOHD in feet for a continuous wave laser is
NOHD = (32.8/theta ) times the Square Root of (( 1.27 * average power)/0.00254)) Where theta is the 1/e divergence of the laser.
1/e Divergence is basically the 10% and 90% points in the power distribution curve across the beam in the laser. This curve is most often a Gaussian distribution, although cheap laser pointers often have horrible beam profiles, most of the high power green pointers are starting to ship with much better beam quality.
So lets move away from the damage threshold, which is a probability of damage occurring, not a absolute guarantee that there will be damage if you observe a beam that is over the NOHD. After all these beams are moving, and greatly disturbed by atmospheric turbulence.
Next Post, CZED and SZED.
Steve
Laser pointer companies like to cater to their mainly teenager and 20-something customers, and those customers are often into "burning", ie seeing what they can burn with a focused beam, Power, which equates to the teenage desire for more horsepower in muscle cars, and Distance. Distance is becoming more and more popular, which is a problem.
When we do Laser in Airspace Calculations, we look not just at the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance, but the Sensitive Zone Exposure Distance and the Critical Zone Exposure Distance. CZED and SZED are more about what pilots need to worry.
This is not just about laser shows accessing airspace legally, there are Lidar Systems, and Laser Guide Stars for astronomy, and Laser Wind Profilers. The cloud height sensor at most airports is a pulsed infrared laser of very low power. There are also laser based glideslope systems for a variety of applications, including some that are directly visible to the pilots eye (Those are intrinsically safe, btw)
So lets start with NOHD. NOHD is a statistical likelihood that there will be large, observable damage to the retina for a visible laser. Not all retinal burns readily show up in basic ophthalmic testing. It usually takes a retinal profiler to detect small damage, and those machines do not grow on trees. The famed Amsler grid referenced earlier pretty much only shows large scale or very severe laser injury to the eye.
For the record, it is often possible to discolor the proteins in the back of the retina and do damage that heals, as well as permanent damage.
So each case must be evaluated on a case by case basis.
A quick approximation for NOHD in feet for a continuous wave laser is
NOHD = (32.8/theta ) times the Square Root of (( 1.27 * average power)/0.00254)) Where theta is the 1/e divergence of the laser.
1/e Divergence is basically the 10% and 90% points in the power distribution curve across the beam in the laser. This curve is most often a Gaussian distribution, although cheap laser pointers often have horrible beam profiles, most of the high power green pointers are starting to ship with much better beam quality.
So lets move away from the damage threshold, which is a probability of damage occurring, not a absolute guarantee that there will be damage if you observe a beam that is over the NOHD. After all these beams are moving, and greatly disturbed by atmospheric turbulence.
Next Post, CZED and SZED.
Steve
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 144
Likes: 34
From: Southampton
I dont think "anti laser" coatings to windows or glasses work by pilots would be practical. Ones that would work reliably would have lenses so dark, you would inhibit normal vision.
A reflective (partially mirrored) coating to the inside of windows would work better. It wouldn't be 100% effective, but would provide a measure of assistance.
A reflective (partially mirrored) coating to the inside of windows would work better. It wouldn't be 100% effective, but would provide a measure of assistance.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 144
Likes: 34
From: Southampton
I got my start in l@sers doing l@ser shows. The low cost l@sers pushed many of us who had professional gear, who obtained the required permits, and insurance for outdoor shows out of business. Most of those low cost l@ser users are totally unaware or ignoring the fact that they need permits for un-terminated l@ser shows in airspace. Filing the paperwork generates NOTAMs, and there is a lot of math required to ensure safety compliance. That means that the companies who still try to be legal must turn down a lot of potential customers, as there is a delay, and mandatory review period with the local agency.
If Sim is who I think he is, his knowledge on the subject of lasers is quite legendary.
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 65
Likes: 2
From: Somewhere around the World
Back to the OT...
I was zapped by a laser at night a few months ago whilst downwind to a major airport.
Fortunately recognising what was going on, control was handed over to the other guy, whilst looking away from the source.
It seems that an ability to pull over a completely blacked-out blind on the side windows would be a better solution than anything we have at present.
It is less likely that someone could be dazzled through the front windows unless the beam is directly in front, such as during final approach.
Notwithstanding trying to pinpoint, apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators, are the aircraft manufacturers looking at this, since this is becoming a more frequent occurrence?
What are the regulators doing?
I was zapped by a laser at night a few months ago whilst downwind to a major airport.
Fortunately recognising what was going on, control was handed over to the other guy, whilst looking away from the source.
It seems that an ability to pull over a completely blacked-out blind on the side windows would be a better solution than anything we have at present.
It is less likely that someone could be dazzled through the front windows unless the beam is directly in front, such as during final approach.
Notwithstanding trying to pinpoint, apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators, are the aircraft manufacturers looking at this, since this is becoming a more frequent occurrence?
What are the regulators doing?
Gender Faculty Specialist
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 432
From: In your head.
Yes, and further you talk about aimlessly waggling at 60 degrees per second. Why don't you consider a more concerted waggle in the general direction of the aeroplane with the intention of actually hitting it.
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Legendary Lighter then Air city, Akron Ohio
Quote:
"What are the regulators doing?"
Well, not knowing that pointers were the main problem, the FAA decided it had authority and banned commercial and most scientific outdoor laser use in the US a decade or so ago until new rules were made. Then they found the problem was more than one or two rogue, automated, laser shows at a hotel in Vegas, causing huge problems for McCarren a long time ago.
Until cheap Chinese pointers flooded the market, on average there were less then two reported laser illuminations of aircraft per year. Which is why many of us who worked with outdoor lasers legally are STEAMING MAD.
Laser Safety in the US is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, who co-operates with FAA and DOD on lasers in airspace.
FAA at first had the idea that it was not possible for a wimpy pointer to cause problems, and that it had to be professional or scientific lasers causing the problem. They had the Centers for Devices and Radiologic Health spent a lot of time looking for "rogue" commercial laser gear. That was not the case, as we know now.
Then came some eye opening FAA simulator studies on just how little light was disruptive.
US Customs works hard to confiscate imports of laser pointers at the border, So does the UK, Germany, and Oz. Most of those nations declare a legal pointer to be no more then one or five milliwatts... But stuff leaks thru like crazy.
In the US, FAA had the Society of Automotive Engineers form the G10 committee, which formulated a laser safety standard that became FAA 7400.D (now 7400.G) which is safe use of Lasers in Airspace, and requires qualified users to formulate a plan to integrate their laser use with an airspace specialist at FAA, with review by DOD in the US. Those rules have been copied around the world with slight variations. I'll get to the effects of that when I get to SZED, CZED and airport runway centerline exclusion zones.
Of course pointer users generally don't even understand something like 7400.G exists, so the problem continued.
Many of the first prosecutions were for "Interfering with an Aircrew"
Over time its lead to a law...
In the US, You can now get five years in Federal Prison or a massive fine, plus there are state laws and local laws...
Here it is:
U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 2
Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
(a) OFFENSE -- Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) LASER POINTER DEFINED -- As used in this section, the term `laser pointer' means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object.
(c) EXCEPTIONS -- This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft, by--
(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct such research and development or flight test operations;
(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing or training; or
(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send an emergency distress signal.
(d) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, may provide by regulation, after public notice and comment, such additional exceptions to this section, as may be necessary and appropriate. The Attorney General shall provide written notification of any proposed regulations under this section to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the Senate not less than 90 days before such regulations become final."
END QUOTE
More to come, when I'm not at work... And yes there are window coatings, low visual impact goggles, various kind of shades, laser countermeasures, specialized gear for helos, and prototypes and patents on tunable notch goggles...
I have a friend who is a noted Helo pilot and consultant, and this subject has came up often..
Just in the past, when the legit laser user groups talked to the pilot groups, all laser users got lumped together. There were a few pilots on the G10 committee who listened...
In my next post I'll get to exposure levels and selecting proper goggles, which is what most of you want to hear... I can't advise you to wear something in the cockpit, as pilots need to follow national rules and follow SOPs, but I can show you some links and the basics...
Sim,
"What are the regulators doing?"
Well, not knowing that pointers were the main problem, the FAA decided it had authority and banned commercial and most scientific outdoor laser use in the US a decade or so ago until new rules were made. Then they found the problem was more than one or two rogue, automated, laser shows at a hotel in Vegas, causing huge problems for McCarren a long time ago.
Until cheap Chinese pointers flooded the market, on average there were less then two reported laser illuminations of aircraft per year. Which is why many of us who worked with outdoor lasers legally are STEAMING MAD.
Laser Safety in the US is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, who co-operates with FAA and DOD on lasers in airspace.
FAA at first had the idea that it was not possible for a wimpy pointer to cause problems, and that it had to be professional or scientific lasers causing the problem. They had the Centers for Devices and Radiologic Health spent a lot of time looking for "rogue" commercial laser gear. That was not the case, as we know now.
Then came some eye opening FAA simulator studies on just how little light was disruptive.
US Customs works hard to confiscate imports of laser pointers at the border, So does the UK, Germany, and Oz. Most of those nations declare a legal pointer to be no more then one or five milliwatts... But stuff leaks thru like crazy.
In the US, FAA had the Society of Automotive Engineers form the G10 committee, which formulated a laser safety standard that became FAA 7400.D (now 7400.G) which is safe use of Lasers in Airspace, and requires qualified users to formulate a plan to integrate their laser use with an airspace specialist at FAA, with review by DOD in the US. Those rules have been copied around the world with slight variations. I'll get to the effects of that when I get to SZED, CZED and airport runway centerline exclusion zones.
Of course pointer users generally don't even understand something like 7400.G exists, so the problem continued.
Many of the first prosecutions were for "Interfering with an Aircrew"
Over time its lead to a law...
In the US, You can now get five years in Federal Prison or a massive fine, plus there are state laws and local laws...
Here it is:
U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 2
Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
(a) OFFENSE -- Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) LASER POINTER DEFINED -- As used in this section, the term `laser pointer' means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object.
(c) EXCEPTIONS -- This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft, by--
(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct such research and development or flight test operations;
(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing or training; or
(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send an emergency distress signal.
(d) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, may provide by regulation, after public notice and comment, such additional exceptions to this section, as may be necessary and appropriate. The Attorney General shall provide written notification of any proposed regulations under this section to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the Senate not less than 90 days before such regulations become final."
END QUOTE
More to come, when I'm not at work... And yes there are window coatings, low visual impact goggles, various kind of shades, laser countermeasures, specialized gear for helos, and prototypes and patents on tunable notch goggles...
I have a friend who is a noted Helo pilot and consultant, and this subject has came up often..
Just in the past, when the legit laser user groups talked to the pilot groups, all laser users got lumped together. There were a few pilots on the G10 committee who listened...
In my next post I'll get to exposure levels and selecting proper goggles, which is what most of you want to hear... I can't advise you to wear something in the cockpit, as pilots need to follow national rules and follow SOPs, but I can show you some links and the basics...
Sim,
Gender Faculty Specialist
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 432
From: In your head.
It is readily apparent, provable by real life examples, that people can do so. Often. Which is actually the point.
Why don't you go and have a look at images of laser refraction through aircraft windows.
Why don't you go and have a look at images of laser refraction through aircraft windows.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,373
Likes: 2
From: Home
Chesty
Nobody is suggesting that a laser at considerable distance can't flash across a cockpit and be distracting.
The discussion is about just how much power would be required to cause eye damage with a hand held laser at any distance.
This is affected by many parameters
Wattage, beam spread, atmospheric attenuation, glass attenuation, tracking ability etc etc.
Pretty green lights in cockpits at height is not the same as proof that hand held lasers are a problem.
Fireworks are distracting to fly above, but nobody suggests we ban them.
Nobody is suggesting that a laser at considerable distance can't flash across a cockpit and be distracting.
The discussion is about just how much power would be required to cause eye damage with a hand held laser at any distance.
This is affected by many parameters
Wattage, beam spread, atmospheric attenuation, glass attenuation, tracking ability etc etc.
Pretty green lights in cockpits at height is not the same as proof that hand held lasers are a problem.
Fireworks are distracting to fly above, but nobody suggests we ban them.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 432
From: In your head.
The discussion is more than just about eye damage but also the effects of laser exposure on pilots, and I don't mean only as a distraction.
The energy density (measure of energy per unit of area) of the laser beam increases as the spot size decreases. This means that the energy of a laser beam can be intensified up to 100,000 times by the focusing action of the eye for visible and near infrared wavelengths. If the irradiance entering the eye is 1 mW/cm2, the irradiance at the retina will be 100 W/cm2. Even a 4% reflection off an optic can be a serious eye hazard. Remember a low power laser in the milliwatt range can cause a burn if focused directly onto the retina.
Last edited by Chesty Morgan; 18th February 2016 at 05:53.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Tourist
From captain Scrogg's post in the original thread:
If you all want to check around numbers to prove or disprove they are a problem feel free, but the debate is starting to remind me of an old old story about dentistry......
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/horse.htm
Pretty green lights in cockpits at height is not the same as proof that hand held lasers are a problem.
As was reported in the news, the FO did receive retinal damage from what appeared to be a 'lucky' passing sweep, but it's not permanent and will heal fully. There was no visual impairment during the flight,
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/horse.htm