U.S. DOT Launches Laser Illumination Reporting

Unloaded writes "The U.S. Department of Transportation announced a new laser warning and reporting system for pilots . The FAA has it's own guidelines for reporting laser illumination." This is a follow up on stories reported earlier.

Comments

Shield

[FiReaNGeL]

Couldn't they implement laser-reflecting shield on the plane's window or at least on pilots googles? It would go a long way protecting pilots eyes...

Re:Shield

[Lindsay Lohan]

Couldn't they implement laser-reflecting shield on the plane's window or at least on pilots googles

The diffusive material required to render these lasers harmless would have the unfortunate side-effect of making the window (or 's) opaque.

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

The goggles...... zey do nothing!!!!!!!!! /McBain

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that using laser-reflecting shields has some annoying side-effects, such as blocking all visible light entering the cockpit...

Re:Shield

[Gleef]

Sure, if they want the pilots to be unable to see. Lasers can be in any wavelength of the EM spectrum. There's no way to block out all lasers without blocking out all light.

Personally, I prefer the extra safety of having pilots able to look at their surroundings.

Re:Shield

[ted_the_canuck]

Lasers can be made at various frequencies, so that might be tricky. You can purchase goggles that block out certain laser frequencies, but I suspect it might be difficult to read certain indicators on instruments if the goggles were meant to block out green light. The transmission efficiency of most laser goggles isn't very good.

Re:Shield

[eviloverlordx]

Dang...I guess that means I won't be able to use my death ray/laser pointer to illuminate any more planes :(.

Re:Shield

[mOoZik]

Just get the pilots to wear goggles of the specific wavelengths, such as of the most popular lasers, which I think is something like 550-700 nm? I could be wrong, but you get the idea...

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

But the human eyes have 2x more green receptors than of the other colors, and are therefore lots more sensitive to green.

Not saying laser filters are a superb idea, but anyway.

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's called "Smoke and Mirrors"

Re:Shield

[testing124]

But the human eyes have 2x more green receptors than of the other colors, and are therefore lots more sensitive to green.

Oh really! This must have evolved after the US gov. introduced paper money...

Re:Shield

[scotch]

The really dangerous lasers are infrared. Certain frequencies in the infrared do major corneal or retinal damage. This happens without the eye owner knowing that it's happening.

Re:Shield

[FalconZero]

If you've found a way to make Gamma ray lasers, I *STRONGLY* suggest you patent them, and then step up for your nobel prize in physics.

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

That's half of the visible EM spectrum! I, for one, do not want my pilot blinded to half of the visible spectrum...especially at night! After all, the laser has to hit a target about 4-8mm in diameter--the pilot's pupil.

Unless these laser pointers are hooked up to some vibratory tracking apparatus, I would much rather take my chances without goggles, thank you.

Re:Shield

[LadyLucky]

Sure, if they want the pilots to be unable to see. Lasers can be in any wavelength of the EM spectrum. There's no way to block out all lasers without blocking out all light.

Doesn't necessarily follow, laser light has other properties that may be used to block them. Their light is, for example, coherent.

Re:Shield

[mlyle]

I agree on the half the EM spectrum part-- building general purpose anti-laser goggles for use in aircraft is not really feasible at this point.

Hitting the small target isn't so hard though, because lasers aren't really so coherent. A beam spread of at least .1 degrees is common even on relatively good industrial lasers; this means you need to only be able to aim within .1 degrees of your target, which is of lesser difficulty than say, aiming a rifle accurately at 100yds.

This really sucks. Pointing lasers at aircraft is easy to do, distracting to the pilot at laser pointer power levels and gravely injuring at common industrial laser power levels, and nearly impossible to defend against.

Re:Shield

[TheSync]

Glass and plastic highly attenuate the lowest IR frequencies. CO2 lasers, for instance, generally need a special kind of crystal for an optical window.

Near IR might pass though (semiconductor laser, for example).

Re:Shield

[Doc Ruby]

Wait - coherence and diffusion are orthogonal: the beam can spread while all the "waves" peaks are precisely in phase. Lasersafe goggles for pilots does seem really stupid, though, about as stupid as confiscating every nailclipper people bring aboard, while leaving checked luggage unscanned.

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

A shield is not really viable. But the big problem is this: with increasing numbers of ignorant morons buying high-powered lasers, when are they going to start shining them in the eyes of motor vehicle drivers? And THAT will be even worse. You can't put laser shields on every car and truck.

Re:Shield

[scotch]

What about 1.06 microns? That's a readily available infrared laser frequency with fairly high power (e.g. NdYAG) - I believe it passes readily through glass and is harmful to the old fuzzy warbles. Stuff between there and red (900 nm ish) is also available and most optics are transparent to it. The eyeball damage potential may be less. Lower frequency stuff, in the neighborhood of 10 microns is available (C02 is 4.3 or 4.7 microns, no?) though that may suffer the problem you talk about. It's been >10 years since I've done any laser work, so my info might be rusty.

Frequency doubling crystals are probably readily available to those who might want to use these for nefarious purposes - check your handy physics lab catalog. We used a pretty cheap one to double NdYAG to optical frequencies (a nice green).

Re:Shield

[mr100percent]

Can't they just wear sunglasses? How about two-way mirrors or reflective trooper shades?

Re:Shield

[Anonymous Coward]

Psh. Look, the solution is easy. Let's lock up everybody with any sort of laser (from laser pointers to big ones, and yes, even those with optical disc drives) and send them to Guantanamo Bay. This solution seems to work for all our other problems, since the US locks people up for no reason anyway. And its working, since we are so much safer now then before. Of course, to modify a classic Simpsons line - that's like saying this mouse deters terrorism, since we haven't had an attack since I've had it. Bets on how soon Homeland Security is at my door looking for my mouse? :-)

This is....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is NCA-1430 flying over California...and...Hey c'mon. make em stop that!

US D.O.T. Lasers:

[Anonymous Coward]

No wireless. Less space than a flashlight. Lame.

Drat!

[irokitt]

It would appear that my army of sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads is no longer feasible.

This makes me sad.

Re:Drat!

[AceCaseOR]

t would appear that my army of sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads is no longer feasible.

Since they are sharks, and sharks are fish, wouldn't that technically be a navy of sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads?

Re:Drat!

[AintTooProudToBeg]

Perhaps you should consider sea bass...

Re:Drat!

[irokitt]

Actually, the fallback crutch is jellyfish;)

Re:Drat!

[contagious_d]

I say he should put the sharks' brains in robot bodies and give them chainsaw hands and those floaties with the duck heads on the front. Then it could be both... like the Marines.

Re:Drat!

[lucabrasi999]

Perhaps you should consider sea bass...

Are they ill-tempered?

Re:Drat!

[fm6]

Sharks? How absurd! Wouldn't werewolves or mutant eagles be more practical for most applications?

Re:Drat!

[The Good Reverend]

I love sea bass!

Re:Drat!

[Fred_A]

Yes, but how long before you aren't allowed to shine lasers at planes landing on aircraft carriers either ?

So in the end it looks that it won't be feasible anyway whatever it's called. It's a great loss to, um, something surely.

How long has this been happening?

[Jerk City Troll]

I was listening to the news (NRP) this morning and the reporter explained how this was a "sudden rash" of activity. But is that really the case? It seems to me that this has been happening for a long time. Laser pointers have been available to the general public for quite some time now. We are supposed to believe that people only got it into their heads to start aiming them at planes and other interesting targets within the past few months?

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

More a matter of strength- 100mw lasers have only gotten cheap in the last couple of months, most laser pointers are only 5mw and would be far too dim to do any damage (as it is, your average 5mw laser has to be held on the pupil for 30 seconds to do any damage. I don't know about you, but my hands shake too much to hold on a stationary target that small at 100 feet, let alone a pilot's eyeball on a jetliner moving past me at 100 MPH).

Re:How long has this been happening?

[mpathetiq]

TFA say there have been 400+ reported incidents since 1990. 31 of these happened since Dec. 23rd. That seems to be a sudden rash!

Re:How long has this been happening?

[spungebob]

We are supposed to believe that people only got it into their heads to start aiming them at planes and other interesting targets within the past few months?

I would say "yes"... not because this hasn't been happening for a long time now, but because the media has finally gotten around to telling the story - and of course they have to tell EVERYONE about it so yes, they're the ones who are now putting the idea into the heads of TONS of goobers who'd never thought of it before. It's your typical self-fulfilling media-fed frenzy where they're reporting on a "sudden rash" that they themselves have helped to create.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[kd5ujz]

Its been a sudden rash since the media blew it out of proportion, and now every dipshit with a damn toy thinks its funny.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[drooling-dog]

But is that really the case?

This entire issue seems a little fishy to me. Laser pointers are not very powerful (as someone else here pointed out), and the accuracy and stability with which someone on the ground would have to hold it in order to keep the (weak and highly diverged) spot on a pilot's retina (in a moving aircraft, no less) for any length of time is very hard to imagine.

But then, I can't think of a reason why the Powers That Be would want to hype the threat, unless a ban on laser pointers was coming for some unrelated and unpublicized reason. Or, perhaps, just to maintain the general level of terror hysteria here in the U.S..

Re:How long has this been happening?

[kd5ujz]

not sure if you are being sarcastic, or serious, but it is quite a rash. Since the 23rd, we are averaging 1.55 a day, including today ( I doubt there were any reported today yet). IF you figure 500 since 1990, and fudge the math to use 366 days a year ( bite me guys)over 14 years you get .097/day. This is a pretty common thing now, and you can thank the media for that. These are not terrorists, these are dumb asses trying to be cute.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Greyfox]

Try 300 mph. IIRC stall speed on a 747 is around 155MPH. Also IIRC final approach speed is about 300mph up until the last few hundred feet. It's been a while since I've been over any of that, so if we have any airline pilots who'd like to provide exact numbers, please feel free.

The upshot of that being that it should be almost impossible to target the cabin by hand prior to the last couple hundred feet, and then you'd most likely have to be standing right in front of the plane for it to do any good. I also have my doubts that any automated system available to civilians could target a plane's cabin and hold that target for any amount of time at all.

That being said, I rather doubt that the space program will miss these nimrods if we throw a few of them behind bars for a few years. At the very least, that should put the kibosh on the public hysteria and perhaps make the rest of the nimrods out there reconsider their choice of laser targets in the future.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Meski]

If I was paranoid, I'd think that laser pointers could be easily adapted to laser rifle sights, and the government wanted to close this loophole. But I aint paranoid, so let it pass...

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That makes sense. My original comment came from a foolish period in my younger days when I had a very nice Mazda Miata for a rental, I had just come off a marathon coding session in Las Vegas, and was headed for the strip at 2:00am passing the airport. I decided to clock a landing jet- and it came in at just about 100MPH. No, I don't remember what the jet was- for all I remember it might have been a small gulfstream, not a passenger plane at all.

OTOH- I think one would find it extremely hard to target the cockpit of any plane from the ground unless that plane was on final approach or takeoff. I still have my doubts about the reports over Oregon and Colorado that were supposed to take place at 30,000 feet.....

Re:How long has this been happening?

[tim_mathews]

Boeing 747 Specs ... it's Flash.
According to this, the typical cruise speed is 567mph @ 35,000ft. This seems to be pretty typical across the 7x7 series of jetliners by boeing. Someone else can look up Airbus specs.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, perhaps, just to maintain the general level of terror hysteria here in the U.S

Bingo. Both media and government have a vested interest in exaggerating any kind of threat, no matter how unlikely.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[samantha]

Simple.
a) Appear to be doing SOMETHING to KEEP US SAFE when actually doing worse than nothing;
b) criminalize civilians whenever possible;
c) check just how bloody gullible the public and media is.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[davids-world.com]

this is just another one of those scares that try to get people to vote for some (much more scary) security policies. first of all, it's not 100mph. your average jet (something like a A320) comes down at around 145 knots, that's about 160mph. (it would, even in this configuration, stall at 100mph --> crash!). there is a system called 'autoland' that does pretty much what its name says, either up to now very low decision heights or, if airport / runway are equipped appropriately, right down to the runway. the approach can be flown by the autopilot, so to be quite clear, if - and that alone seems impossible - one of the pilots would be blinded by a very strong laser that would be magically pointed in the right direction - that wouldn't bring down a jet. i would think it is so much easier to disrupt public life - why would anyone bother? i suspect the world would be a better place if we turned to the really important, underlying problems and forget our fear of terrorism for a while!

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

a) not the dippy red $5 laserpointers, the expensive 200mW green ones that put a beam up into the skies for stargazing
b) 10% of the reported incidents since 1990 have been in the last 3 months.
c) if there's more then 5 mph of change in the crosswind (gusting) during landing, you're going to crash the airplane if you can't see.
d) it takes less then 1/10th of a second of illumination to dazzle someone for a 30 seconds (a long time at 180 mph)

Re:How long has this been happening?

[diphead]

100 MPH? Try 300 MPH and at 8500' above the ground (This was reported in one of the news stories).

I don't care who you are, you can't aim a laser by hand at a moving target a mile and half away and hit a window that is maybe 3' x 3'. I still don't believe these stories

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

a) not the dippy red $5 laserpointers, the expensive 200mW green ones that put a beam up into the skies for stargazing

Where's it say that?

b) 10% of the reported incidents since 1990 have been in the last 3 months.

Copycats. Solution: LESS media coverage.
(BTW: how many of these were "dippy red $5 laserpointers"??

c) if there's more then 5 mph of change in the crosswind (gusting) during landing, you're going to crash the airplane if you can't see.

Not necessarily.

d) it takes less then 1/10th of a second of illumination to dazzle someone for a 30 seconds (a long time at 180 mph)

I DARE you to try pointing a laser pointer (dippy red or green) at a target moving 200-300 mph, and hold it steady enough to "dazzle" someone several MILES away.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Ralph Wiggam]

This has been a news story for about two weeks. What was two weeks ago? Christmas. What did geeky kids get for Christmas? Green lasers. What do geeky kids do with thier new powerful lasers? Try to put a green dot on something really far away. What far away objects are easy to find? Aircraft.

This is such a bullshit non-story. The fact that the new federal TSA screeners recieved the identical bad scores as the old private screeners on random bomb and gun tests, yet cost a lot more, worries me more.

-B

Re:How long has this been happening?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I still have my doubts about the reports over Oregon and Colorado that were supposed to take place at 30,000 feet.....

You doubt the pilots' veracity, or you doubt that these were knuckleheads playing with laserpointers?

Has anybody considered that these may be from a satellite?

Re:How long has this been happening?

[midav]

OK, my simple theory why it is happening lately is following. While we had lasers available to the general public for a while -- they were mostly RED lasers. As we all know red laser beam is virtually invisible in the air, so pointing it to an aircraft is like using a camera with a broken visor.

The recent 'sudden rush' of activity can be explained by arelatively recent availability to the general public of the GREEN beam lasers, which have two distinct features - a) their beam's reach is much longer (IIRC 10,000 ft, comparing to red lasers measly 3,000 ft,) and, the most important, b) the beam is visible in the air, which makes pointing it to remote objects much easier.

So, with a 3,000 ft beam, you could at most point to a Cessna right above you and only if you are extremely lucky. OTOH, sitting on the bank of Passaic river near EWR you can point a 10,000 ft green laser to a landing craft flying right at you when its angular motion is negligible.

So, I believe that, unfortunately for us all, there is some grain of truth in what we are told.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Fred_A]

In case of sudden rash, apply lotion. Do not apply on broken skin.

If symptoms persist, consult your regular doctor.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Lectrik]

a) Appear to be doing SOMETHING to KEEP US SAFE when actually doing worse than nothing;
b) criminalize civilians whenever possible;
c) check just how bloody gullible the public and media is.

4) ???
V) profit

Re:How long has this been happening?

[hughk]

You would have to get the pilot head-on (so you would need to be on the approach path), but you could really ruin someone's night vision. However, a 5mw isn't goint to do it. Maybe a 100mW or more would actually cause damage, I don't know.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Jherek Carnelian]

There was an article in one of the local oregon papers that suggested their incident was st elmo's fire and not an actual laser.

Pilots aren't that bright outside of their rather narrow speciality - I've known a few commercial airline pilots myself and heard plenty of stories - and they are just as subject to the herd mentality. I'm sure that any unusual light-related phenomenon withnessed by a pilot since that silly DHS alert about laser attacks a few months ago has been reported as a laser.

Re:How long has this been happening?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You doubt the pilots' veracity, or you doubt that these were knuckleheads playing with laserpointers?

I doubt that the knuckleheads were ground-based. Seems FAR more likely that:

Has anybody considered that these may be from a satellite?

Or for that matter from another plane.

So, please read this report..

[adeyadey]

..with the remaining eye..

The goggles...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they do nothing.

at least it's not the navy

[Triumph The Insult C]

putting huge frickin lasers on sharks

Light aircraft?

[FalconZero]

I assume this is for (small) light aircraft, as anything bigger than a sopwith camel either :

• Flys above clouds (if present)
• Doesn't have a flight deck pointing towards the ground (granted they bank, light refects and low angle beams)
• Doesn't hang around if one place long enough for any ground based beam to hit someone eye for more than fractions of a second, so it doesn't matter (unless your talking about one of these)

Anyway.... how long is it before they also recommend, radar and IR detection, as well as chaff and flares for civilian planes?? or perhapse civilian stealth?? [I'd quite like to see a stealth Airbus A380]

Re:Light aircraft?

[Realistic_Dragon]

[I'd quite like to see a stealth Airbus A380]

It's already stealthy - it's so fricking big no one will believe it's really floating around in the sky.

The military transport version will just be the same thing painted pink with a Somebody Elses Problem field.

Re:Light aircraft?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That 100mw+ laser is EXACTLY what they're talking about- anything less just doesn't have the power to matter, and the one guy who has been arrested so far was using one of those babies.

Re:Light aircraft?

[FalconZero]

At no point does the FAA, the U.S. DOT, or the poster specify the power output, and yes, I read both before before I posted (and before the story was posted). In addition, you expect the assialant to keep a 100+mW laser on target for a significant length of time when....

Minimum Distance from Source : 500m [50,000cm](~5 seconds from impact)
Pupil Size : 1cm
Tan(Theta)=Opp/Adj
Theta=arcTan(Opp/Adj)
Theta=arcTan(1/50000)=arcTan(0.00002)
=~0.00114592 Degrees

If both the plain and the laser were absolutly still, the laser would have to be pointed with an angular precision of 0.0011 degrees. You think you can hold your hand steady to that precision? And keep it there for long enough to be a problem?? and without you or the plane moving by more than a cm???

Re:Light aircraft?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I know I can't- but the guy in the OTHER story who got arrested apparently was able to target the initial jetliner for 5 seconds and the subsequent helicopter for 10. In NEITHER account was anybody blinded though- as that would take a good deal more time. I was making an assumption that the new US DOT regulations were coming at this time (as opposed to long before now) due to the recent rash of events reported.

I'm STILL skeptical on two of the events reported- at ~10,000 m from the ground, I would think that the events over Colorado and Oregon would HAVE to be either plane-to-plane, or completely accidental discharge of an industrial laser.

Re:Light aircraft?

[Oktober Sunset]

civilian stealth? are you mad? imagine air traffic control. "flight 376, we have no fucking clue where you are, and we have no clue where any other planes are, look out the window, can you see a big red building?, ok, turn left there, and look out for flight 769, they're somewhere near there too"

Re:Light aircraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was so easy to cause mayhem this way, wouldn't there be more car crashes? Surely much more fun to see cars swerve than to watch a plane do nothing.

What I haven't seen in any of the stories is an account of damage to pilots' underwear if they think they have been painted by a laser aiming system.

Re:Light aircraft?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If it was so easy to cause mayhem this way, wouldn't there be more car crashes? Surely much more fun to see cars swerve than to watch a plane do nothing.

Where have you been? There have been reports of painting cars with laser pointers ever since the little 5mw ones hit the $20 price point.

Re:Light aircraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't have to hit the pupil to dazzle the pilot. You have to hit the windscreen for less then 1/10th of a second. Remember that eyes are susceptible to SNR and have crappy automatic gain control. 1/10th of a second is long enough to destroy night vision, and the windscreen will flash the light around. The beamwidth of the laser out at that distance is also larger then your assumed 0.

Re:Light aircraft?

[hobbesmaster]

Thats why all civilian aircraft with avionics operating in the world today have this thing called a transponder which continuously pulses its location out for ATC to see. This includes stealth bombers and so forth that are operating in civilian airspace.

Is the problem this bad?

[Gorffy]

Is this problem really so bad that the government needs to start shelling out loads of cash to implement a system against it?

Re:Is the problem this bad?

[drooling-dog]

Is this problem really so bad that the government needs to start shelling out loads of cash to implement a system against it?

It is if some politically well-connected company can make big bucks doing so...

Re:Is the problem this bad?

[lamber45]

I don't think this is really going to cause much cash expenditure as such -- it's more of a "now you can't blame us" memo. Of course, an air-traffic controller's time is probably worth something, and so is the time of the police-officer who ends up reading the report, but police follow up low-priority incidents all the time. Besides, the person responsible for the government spending said cash is the yahoo who tries to shine a high-powered laser at an airplane. What would you do if you were driving down an interstate highway and someone shined a laser at you from an overpass?

teh ghey

[the0ther]

This is so stupid. This laser crap is so blown out of proportion. Wtf is someone going to do with a laser that will take down a commercial airliner? Shine it in the pilot's eye AND the copilots eye AND disable the autopiloting system AND they probably have a way for the tower to land the plane in case of emergency. Anyone who disagrees with me is a scared little wussie and probably voted for Bush, who won mostly because of all the fearmongering leading up to the election. Sheesh.

Re:teh ghey

[wasted]

A couple of quick points -

From what I can tell from talking to commercial airline pilots, most landings are done manually to keep in practice, and hand flown landings are usually softer than the ones flown automatically.

The people in the tower cannot land the plane. Only the people in the cockpit can control the autopilot/autoland functions.

Re:teh ghey

[Martin Blank]

There is no way for the tower to land the plane in the case of an emergency. If there were, the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have been controlled from the ground. This concept has been brought up before, and the pilot unions have raised issues with it, particularly the possibility of someone unauthorized getting into the system and downing a few planes despite perfectly capable flight crews being on-board.

Re:teh ghey

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear is a fantastic tool of control. Gotta keep the public in a state of fear, so that they will continue to vote republican (ie: big government, less rights, useless and costly wars, etc.)

Re:teh ghey

[jimmcq]

Wtf is someone going to do with a laser that will take down a commercial airliner?

How about a laser-guided RPG/missle?

Re:teh ghey

[YrWrstNtmr]

This is so stupid. This laser crap is so blown out of proportion.

I take it you wouldn't be bothered if someone shone a laser into your eyes while you're trying to drive at night?

Shine it in the pilot's eye AND the copilots eye

I don't know about you, but I like my pilots being able to see. 100%. Not suffering from temporary blindness trying to land at night.

they probably have a way for the tower to land the plane in case of emergency.

Uh huh..sure. That is simply reused technology from the alien ship stored at hangar 18.

Re:teh ghey

[lucabrasi999]

Shine it in the pilot's eye AND the copilots eye AND disable the autopiloting system AND they probably have a way for the tower to land the plane in case of emergency.

From this, not only do I presume that you don't have a pilots license, but it appears that you have never actually seen the inside of a commercial airliner.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a scared little wussie and probably voted for Bush

In my case, you are wrong. I voted for the other wealthy patrician.

Re:teh ghey

[drooling-dog]

How about a laser-guided RPG/missle?

Someone please mod this WAY up. I just finished a post suggesting that the "threat" was being hyped for some reason, but I couldn't think of what that reason might be, except maybe to maintain terror hysteria for political reasons. I think you may have hit the bullseye there.

Re:teh ghey

[the0ther]

All right. I grant you that I have never seen the inside of an airline cockpit. But let's be serious here, you're not going to blind all 4 eyes of the pilot and co-pilot with a laser. Sure, there's maybe a .1% chance but give me a fscking break. Also, I know little to nothing about autopilot and I was totally wrong on the capability of the tower to land the plane. If idiotic humans weren't so scared of letting go of control the world would be a different place. And to the asshole that said a laser-guided RPG...the risk there is the RPG not the fricken lasers.

Re:teh ghey

[arose]

So what are they going to do about heat guided projectiles?

Re:teh ghey

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you wouldn't be bothered if someone shone a laser into your eyes while you're trying to drive at night?

Not if they shined it at my car from 5 MILES AWAY!!

Re:teh ghey

[John Whorfin]

A couple of quick points

Aaah! I'm blind!

Re:teh ghey

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod it down, and the doofus who said mod it up.

Military guidance lasers are not visible. It's kindof an issue when the bad guys see you aiming at them.

Besides, why aim at the harder-to-hit nose? You'd aim "center-mass".

Re:teh ghey

[M1FCJ]

fnord This fnord is fnord actualy fnord quite fnord fnord fnord serious fnord. Of course fnord fnord you can bring a plane fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord down with a single, small mW range fnord fnord fnord fnord laser if you fnord fnord fnord know really fnord fnord where to point it fnord fnord fnord. It is a fnord not-widely fnord fnord known fnord fnord fact that every plane has a fnord special receptive fnord fnord when lighted fnord with the right light fnord fnord fnord stops the engine fnord fnord fnord fnord .

Yours fnord truly, Cecile Hagbard fnord.

Make a straight line, go to jail.

[www.sorehands.com]

Now, when you try to align something, but you overshine the target, the pilot flying 25000 feet overhead will report you to the FBI.

Re:Make a straight line, go to jail.

[Stalus]

Well, one of the guys that was questioned was using his green laser to point at stars. Lasers are used quite extensively for astronomy discussions. Also, telescopes and satellites use them for calibration. There are lots of lasers pointed skyward.

Because of this, I don't know how they would ever be able to prosecute someone.. unless they're caught with some complicated tracking system that can follow the human retina at that distance and speed. But if a terrorist had that, why would they use a friggin laser?

Re:Make a straight line, go to jail.

[kd5ujz]

The guy ALSO pointed the laser at a corporate jet, and also a police helicopter investigating the corporate jet illumination. Any observatory using lasers for alignment ( not sure how this would work any better then optical alignment, think scope) would probably be listed on any area flight maps, or in a NOTAM around the time it would be used.

Re:Make a straight line, go to jail.

[tzanger]

Well, one of the guys that was questioned was using his green laser to point at stars.

... a 100mW green laser pointer can illuminate a star? I mean okay if there was enough fog I could see him using it as a straight line but who the hell uses optical telescopes in fog?

Re:Make a straight line, go to jail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a 5mw green laser is enough to see a beam well even on a clear night with no fog.

Re:Make a straight line, go to jail.

[Stalus]

... a 100mW green laser pointer can illuminate a star? I mean okay if there was enough fog I could see him using it as a straight line but who the hell uses optical telescopes in fog?

Ever seen dust illuminated by a projector? Same idea. A thin beam over a long distance will illuminate particles in the air enough that you can get an idea of where someone is pointing in the sky. It works better for green since your eye can detect green better, and appears brighter. Especially if you're in an area that's shielded enough from street lights for star gazing. It's not going to look like those posed pictures where they put a little dry ice out and make a nice solid laser beam, but it's enough for someone to have discussions about stars. Lasers are advertised to be used this way

Despite all that, my point was more that legally, I don't know how you prove that a person was intentionally shining it at an aircraft, since there are legitimate reasons to point a laser skyward.

What about at the movies?

[beckerbuns]

Is there some authority who will take reports on those morons who paint the movie screen with laser pointers?

Re:What about at the movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some authority who will take reports on those morons who paint the movie screen with laser pointers?

OT: You actually go to a movie theater? Get a big TV (widescreen), a DVD player and surround sound. That problem with the laser pointers goes away.

Re:What about at the movies?

[Nasarius]

As do the 15 minutes of adverts, followed by 15 minutes of trailers. I paid for my fucking ticket, why do you think you can show me car commercials? Bullshit. I used to go to the movies fairly often; now I just wait and use NetFlix.

Re:What about at the movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let's see.

• $4,000 for a large plasma screen.
• $200 for a decent DVD player.
• $800 for a passable sound system.
• $8,325 for the cost of 333 DVDs. (see below)
• OR $1,665 for the cost of 333 rentals.

Total, around $13,325 (purchased DVDs) to $6,665 (rented DVDs). The average cost of movie tickets for two, $15. That equals three hundred and thirty-three trips to the theatre based on the cost before the purchase/rental of DVDs.

Thus, with that cost included, the total number of movies one can visit at a theatre: 888 to 444 depending upon purchased or rental DVDs. Being that that average couple only sees around 7-12 movies in a theatre per year, that comes to around 88 to 44 years worth of seeing films at the theatre.

I think, by then it would be safe to say that your $5,000 system would be completely and utterly outdated, and the $8,000 of DVDs absolete (if you chose to buy them.)

Yes, quite a clever option you have there. And before you stink and fume about getting cheaper equipment -- come on, unless you are somewhat near the theatre experience, this isn't even a rational alternative.

Re:What about at the movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, quite a clever option you have there. And before you stink and fume about getting cheaper equipment -- come on, unless you are somewhat near the theatre experience, this isn't even a rational alternative.

OK, now you force me to rant about cost. And, I will be WAY OT because of this. :)

First, you should note that the cost of going to the theater is a bit more than $15. Don't forget the popcorn, candy and coke. Now, you are looking at $30 or $40. If you have kids, suddenly, you are dropping $80.

Why would you need a plasma TV? Get a standard projection. Consumer Reports says that the picture is better on a standard project TV, anyway. A few years ago, I spent a total of $3,500 on a 51-inch widescreen projection Sony, including the DVD and 5.1 surround sound. I can shake the walls of my house with my surround sound AND the screen is so large, I might as well be sitting in a real movie theater. (Note that in some cities (Wash DC comes to mind) the theater screen is so small, you might as well be watching a television). On top of all of that, I can hit 'pause' if I have to take a leak.

As for Rentals, you can go to Blockbuster.com or Netflix and rent unlimited movies for about $18 a month. No late fees and no postage costs.

With all due respect, you need a bit of an education on the home theater.

Re:What about at the movies?

[WoBIX]

Yes, it's called "a kick in the ass".

And it works! :)

Re:What about at the movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I don't eat junk food, and I certainly don't pay for theatre food, even if it isn't junk food, which is why I did not factor in the costs of that for myself (nor do I have the culturally obligatory offspring).

Secondly, your adjusted home theatre figure is not all that much lower than mine. Plasma prices are down these days, you should be the one doing research. They are comparable to projection. I chose plasma because right now they offer the best picture. LCDs are up and coming though, and cheaper. I believe the future is there. Both plasma and projection are just carrying the tide for now. All besides the point, since we are talking about now.

Thirdly, I don't know anyone who exclusively rents from a mail service, especially with the lowest plans like you quoted. Even with a four movie out plan, you are still highly limited by postal transit time. Most people end up renting from their local video places for impulse viewing, and buying DVDs as well. Owning the DVDs is afterall, one of the few true advantages to a home theatre. I'm surprised you didn't bring that up. If you strictly rent everything, you truly might as well just go the theatre.

All in all, if you do the math, you still have decades of going to the theatre before the system you describe pays for itself -- a long enough time span that I still suggest your media would be obsolete (if you bought any) as well as your system, which if it isn't obsolete, will probably be broken given the shody way things are constructed these days with the Buy New Don't Repair philosophy that has been foisted on the ignorant public. Thus, you'll never come out ahead financially (since that is what you were touting) by having a home theatre. Even if you factor in cheapening technology over decades timespan, everything you spend over the current system and DVD budget is merely going over the theatre quote, and thus extending the duration of that option's longevity. In other words, if you are old enough to afford an expensive home theatre, you'll be dead by the time you pay for it in theatre tickets.

Last but not least, if you live in an area that has pitiful theatres, that is one thing. I suppose I take for granted the many venues I have, all of which provide an experience far greater to anything $3,500 will buy you; and many of which play the types of foreign/art house films I enjoy.

Anyway, there is a lot more to it than just these two polarised examples. My point was not to demerit owning a television and watching movies at home -- there is certainly a place for that. But when somebody comes out and says it is cheaper to do that exclusively, by mimicking the theatre experience with home equipment, I have to laugh a bit.

Laser Pointers

[MrRuslan]

I think laser pointers are illegal as it is because I remember I was unable to walk 2 blocks without someone pointing one at me, now I rarely see them.

Re:Laser Pointers

[temojen]

They're not illegal (here); The novelty's worn off.

Re:Laser Pointers

[ajlitt]

Laser pointers are not explicitly illegal in the USA. The FDA says it's illegal to sell equipment that emits laser radiation and hasn't had a power classification filed. Laser pointers usually come with the FDA warning sticker stating the maximum emitted power. Even CD players, which do not in normal circumstances emit beams from the case, have such a rating.

However, many states have made it illegal to point lasers at oncoming traffic, citing that it distracts drivers and becomes a safety hazard. For the same exact reason, having misaligned headlights is also illegal.

A laser used properly is just like any other potentially hazardous machine. Chainsaws have been used to commit some nasty acts, but nobody would even consider the possibility of banning or tightly regulating them just because they've got a sinister use. [insert gun control rant here]

Sure!

[temojen]

Which frequency? What if someone uses a different type of laser?

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

different kind of laser?

i wonder if the report was printed on a laser printer ;-)

How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[winkydink]

(or meters/metres for those of you not in the US) Since a very small movement of the wrist is going to result in a large movement at the other end of the beam, it stirkes me that it has to be pretty darn hard to aim a laser beam into a cockpit unless you've either got it mounted on some sort of tripod or you're very close to the take-off/landing point (in which case, you should be fairly easy to find)

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[mboverload]

Attach a scope, JUST like firing a rifle, but it's always on...and always firing...with unlimited ammo.

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[winkydink]

Very few people (military snipers aside) can scope on a moving target 5,000 feet away from them.

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[drooling-dog]

Absolutely. The whole "threat" as presented to the public doesn't make any sense for a number of practical reasons. Why hype it then? Someone else here suggested that perhaps the real issue is the possibility of cheap laser-guided missiles...

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, it's nearly impossible to hit the eye of a pilot in a commercial aircraft with a laser.

IM(AC)O it's just the next step logical step of a FUD campaign which is going on since McCarthy (but I must admit that it really took off after 911 again).

Just think about ways to harm the US which don't involve lasers and planes - I don't believe it would be that hard for a fanatic to commit another carnage in the US geared towards the media. Just walk around and imagine what you would do if you had any intentions regarding terrorism. For a starter think about GPS navigated model aircrafts equipped with plastics. Or think about rocket launchers - since they don't check every container which reaches an US harbor you could as well try to get some of them into the US. Both scenarios are more likely than a plane crash caused by a laser.

IMO the security measurements taken since 2001 only serve the purpose of calming everybody down. Those embarrassing checks before they allow you to board a plane for example wouldn't prevent anybody from hijacking it or planting a bomb. They just do it because they want you to feel save. There are many European carriers for example which don't perform that well regarding security and which still fly to the US. There used to be a "test" in which you had to state that you are not planning any "attacks on the White House" and that you were not "involved in war crimes between 1939 and 1945". Being about 15 years old back then I had no problems regarding war crimes and I really had no problems convincing the immigration officer that I had no intention of attacking the White House, but I really wonder if this immigration sheet ever really served a purpose apart from bothering tourists. It's the same pattern.
The reason terrorists haven't struck again is simple: They already archieved their goal.

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[lucabrasi999]

Very few people (military snipers aside) can scope on a moving target 5,000 feet away from them.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: [Referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and mass murderer Charles Whitman] Do any of you people know where these individuals learned how to shoot?... Private Joker.
Private Joker: Sir. In the Marines, Sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: In the Marines. Outstanding. Those individuals showed what one motivated Marine and his rifle can do. And before you ladies leave my Island, you will all be able to do the same thing.

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[TheSync]

A Q-switched pulsed laser has pulses so short that, for all practical purposes, they will deliver their entire power in a signle place even if the laser is being scanned rapidly in a 2D grid (apparently looking like a 2D grid of spote).

Even with a few miliradian divergence, the spot size will be about 10 feet wide a few thousand feet away.

I don't think a "man portable" laser could be truly dangerous to pilots, but one that is "pickup-truck portable" with the appropriate scanner could be.

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[winkydink]

100's of yards and not at targets moving in excess of 100mph

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[scotch]

What matters is apparent motion. There is much less apparent motion for many jets-on-final scenarios than there was in the JFK assassination. Also, with a sufficiently powerful laser, pulsing, scanning, and essentially unlimited ammo, the threat of delivering enough energy to a pilots eye ball is quite real. Laser blinding is something the military worries about. For a few thousand dollars, some technical know-how, and a scientific or indurstrial catalog, you could put together a system that would be quite a nuisance at any airport.

IOW, your 100 mph number doesn't mean jack shit. If you want to pull numbers out of your ass and throw them around, I'd suggest starting with radial velocity, beam divergence, target jitter, angular extent of target, laser energy, pulse width, and physiological response.

That said, I think the threat is way overblown; the overhyping doesn't serve any interest except to keep the nation-of-fear tense and gullible.

Re:How to aim at a target 1000's of feet away?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that would be a) probably a non-visible laser and b) probably targeting center-mass

More security theater!

[Shoten]

Just what the hell is this supposed to accomplish?

"Hey, you just got a laser aimed at the cockpit!" says the computer.

"Great, what are we supposed to do, try to evade it? Somehow, re-enacting the final flight scenes of the movie Top Gun doesn't seem like such a hot idea in a Boeing 757 full of people while we're on a landing approach...and by the way, thanks for the hot tip about that brief blinding flash I just encountered. Glad to know it wasn't just my imagination," says the pilot.

Re:More security theater!

[Mr. Bad Example]

> Just what the hell is this supposed to accomplish?
>
> "Hey, you just got a laser aimed at the cockpit!" says the computer.

Obviously, there will be an automated system in place to start the Laser Floyd show.

Re:More security theater!

[Greyfox]

Hmm we could eqip passenger flights with hellfire missiles. Then if someone fires a laser at the plane, the beam's source could be targetted and removed from the gene pool. That much inbreeding's a bad idea anyway, as illustrated by poodles and the British Royal Family. So you see, eliminating them really is for the good of Humanity anyway. We'd be doing evolution a favor.

Re:More security theater!

[back_pages]

I do wonder if there is some terrorist conspiracy with laser beams and if they have the slightest possibility of having laser guided weapons, are they trying to scare the airlines/NTSB and if so, is the "blinding pilots" simply media spin in an attempt to keep the people calm?

Please note that I'm not suggesting that terrorists actually have laser guided weapons or that terrorists are actually involved. I'm just speculating that if it isn't impossible that they have laser guided weaponry and if they are involved, maybe the motive is to merely incite panic (without all the troublesome details of actually going through with an attack). If the officals react as though the plan is to blind pilots, well yeah, har har har, even GED Jerry knows that's a dumb plan, wink wink. Let's not even broach the subject of laser guided weaponry (regardless of whether or not this is a legitimate laser guided weapons threat).

Re:More security theater!

[Anonymous Coward]

laser guided weapons use IR lasers that per treaties do not have enough energy to blind people. IR lasers aren't visible to the naked eye, and the energies are low enough that the laser won't blind you unless you're being illuminated by the laser and are looking at the source through a magnifying device (binoculars).

Re:More security theater!

[back_pages]

Sure, but I'm not wondering whether these laser attacks COULD guide weapons.. I'm wondering whether terrorists (if they are involved) could intend to cause a panic from the belief that these lasers might guide weapons. I really, really doubt these lasers could seriously blind a pilot while he's flying, yet the media is going crazy talking about it. Is it any less plausible to talk about laser guided weapons?

Re:More security theater!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: More security theater!

More like More Security Theater 3000 ie MST3K

warning system

[lateralus_1024]

pfft....when i tried to warn the pilots with my laser pointer, i got fbi guys at my door the next hour.

Death Ray!

[MonkeyCookie]

A lot of good some puny laser warning system will do them when I start aiming my death ray at the cockpit.

Remember folks, death rays don't kill people: people kill people.

Re:Death Ray!

[forkazoo]

I think you mean, "Death rays don't kill people, unless they are turned on."

I Really Hope they read Sam's LASER FAQ!

[tweedlebait]

... so they could get a clue. Or at least listen to their own CDRH...

http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm

Are we going to get better radar/laser detectors

[iamacat]

as a result of development of this technology. Or did they just mount a stock one from Radio Shark on the airplane windshield?

Welcome...

[mars_rover]

Welcome to Soviet America where all of your socialist dreams can and WILL come true!

I guess...

[tomstdenis]

It's just too much to ask for people to have consideration for others...

We must legislate "nice behaviour"?

I mean I'm about to fly to France [again] and I'm nervous enough about the flight [say weather or other failures], about getting my work done, about getting all my stuff there and back, etc...

Now I have to also worry about some jackass with a sub-90 IQ pointing a laser during takeoff or something?

Fuck humanity.

Tom

Re:I guess...

[Samus]

Actually you should worry more about the radiation levels you will be subjected to. A flight to Europe can subject you to as much as 3 CAT scans worth of radiation.

Re:I guess...

[tomstdenis]

Actually given that europeans smoke like fucking chimneys I'm more worried about developing accute lung cancer over there. ;-)

Tom

Very helpful advice

[nizo]

If pilots have a laser pointed at them, the circular strongly advises pilots and air crew to avoid direct eye contact...

Whew, it is a good thing they included that advice. I am sure most airline pilots figured that the best way to deflect a laser is with their eyeball.

What about Infrared lasers?

[Anonymous Coward]

These would not even be visible.

This is such bullshit

[krbvroc1]

Why can't this much effort be expended on creating a reporting and monitoring system for not loosing my luggage? Or how about for increasing on-time flight?. Or modernizing the radar systems?
Some guy in an apartment shines a laser that hits a plane and he's being treated like a terrorist. I haven't seen enough technical info that would convice me that an average laser on the ground would really be capable of causing a real problem. Perhaps outfit the pilots with $10 goggles or something.
Shoulder fired rockets are more likely to be a problem and we haven't spent the money to outfit planes with countermeasures; its cheaper to arrest people for pointing a laser and gives the appearance of being 'tough on terrorism'.

Re:This is such bullshit

[fm6]

Why can't this much effort be expended on creating a reporting and monitoring system for not loosing my luggage?

Because cleaning up a crashed airplane is a lot more hassle than finding missing luggage.

Re:This is such bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

ohh... to have mods points, mod this guy up...

Re:This is such bullshit

[krbvroc1]

Because cleaning up a crashed airplane is a lot more hassle than finding missing luggage.

Yeah but which one occurs more often (if ever). Which one is a likely scenario? People need to put these 'problems' into context. You can't minimize life to a zero risk probability environment - its just not possible. But you should focus on things that matter.

Re:This is such bullshit

[fm6]

A rigorous analysis of the cost-benefit value of luggage-handling research versus airplane safety research is beyond my ability (and yours too, I would guess). All I have to go on is an intuitive notion that efforts expended to keep airplanes from crashing are more likely to have positive effects on human existance than efforts expended to reunite people with their clean underwear.

Re:This is such bullshit

[AxelTorvalds]

Well besides the obvious that this could cause crashes, I can't imagine why people are putting effort in to beaming planes and pilots unless they are either too stupid to be out free with society or they are really trying to cuase a plane to crash.

I believe it was Executive Decision by Tom Clancy where they had a covert team that were causing planes to crash by shining lasers into the pilots eyes on landing. Fictional or not, this is dangerous. Anyone have a legitmate reason to do this? I could see thinking it would be fun to try for about a minute, it's like dropping cinder blocks on to a high way, trying to hit a windshield.

Re:This is such bullshit

[Comsn]

what do you mean you cant shine a laser at something moving at 100-600mph that is at least 1-15 miles away? what do you mean you'd have to hit 4-15 ft of windshield to even be considered an annoyance? what do you MEAN youd have to be ABOVE THE FUCKING PLANE TO EVEN SHINE A LASER INTO A COCKPIT THAT IS ON THE TOP OF THE PLANE?!

bullshit? no, this is pure and complete BATSHIT INSANE THAT ANYONE WOULD EVEN THINK THIS SHIT UP, THIS IS TOM CLANCY BATSHIT INSANE!

HOW ABOUT YOU FUCKING SPEND A SECOND AND GET LOCKS ON THE FUCKING COCKPIT DOORS SO TERRORISTS CANT GET IN? HUH?! yeah, lets give pilots some guns, in a compressed cabin, smart idea. why not give em boxcutters?

maybe tom ridge can suggest we duct tape the door shut.

wheres all the dangers about lasers onto bus and or vehicle drivers? i mean, thats actually a plausible danger, and much more possible. WE NEED TO BAN LASERS, AND GUNS, AND BOXCUTTERS!

Re:This is such bullshit

[John M Ford]

Am I the only one that thinks that if a low power, hand held laser pointer over that far of a distance can bring down a jetliner, perhaps the problem is a bit bigger than this?

I mean, really..

The guy was a jerk for doing it. But if there is a serious vulnerability here, then deal with it. Next thing you know, they'll ban fingernail clippers on board cause they might be used as a weapon.

John

Re:This is such bullshit

[jangell]

Are you stupid?

The last thing I want to worry about while landing an aircraft is being blinded.
While I am juggling frequencies through the communicatiosn system, reporting my position, looking for other aircraft...Watching the airspeed, altitude, attitude, throttle, gear, mixture, fuel selectors...glide slope...alighnment....etc

Now....Look at a large jet, with lots of people.. Do you want blinded piltos who get blinded, or experiance vertigo.. and end up wtih a large jet crashing into a school? a neighborhood..exploding..Killing hundreds in the plane..hundreds on the ground..

I'm sorry.. Use your fucking head. This is not something to screw around with.

Re:This is such bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that Executive Decision was a book and not real, right?

Re:This is such bullshit

[WoodWood]

I think the government should just finance education for morons like you. This kind of reaction is just pathetic. Don't you think there are more serious threats to planes than mw powered laser pointers accidentally pointed to airplanes. As for the little fucker doing that near runways, I airport security should just do their job instead of looking for ways to reduce the threats resulting from their inneficiency and ask the pilots to report who pointed a laser at the plane. As for the plane crashes, I think we all agree that it is better to avoid them. However, while the administrations are playing with these minor threats, Mr.Terrorist is being trained by the so-called Intelligence Agency and is ready to turn against the country. So much for security!

Re:This is such bullshit

[Lectrik]

Now....Look at a large jet, with lots of people.. Do you want blinded piltos who get blinded, or experiance vertigo.. and end up wtih a large jet crashing into a school? a neighborhood..exploding..Killing hundreds in the plane..hundreds on the ground..

Before putting out FBI alerts about someone using a laser pointer?
That depends, is it a public school?
It would sure convince me someone isn't blowing smoke out of wherever it is people blow smoke out of.
The last thing I want is a pilot who can't tell which way his plane is pointed without having to consult instruments. Also why would you ever not know which position your gear are in, isn't it something at least as substantial as a toggle switch? What exactly is the co-pilot doing all this time anyway?

IANAAP
I Am Not An Airline Pilot

Re:This is such bullshit

[Vacindak]

If that wasn't scary enough, I know of someone (friend of a friend, the story is probably true) who bought a French shoulder-launched missle launcher and one live anti-tank missle off eBay for $200. I guess eBay noticed the auction soon after it ended and wasn't too happy about it, but he received the goods from the seller and has been since asking all his friends to donate a junk car they don't care about to a good cause.

But imagine what would happen if he were malicious and decided to blast an airplane with it while it was loading passengers on the ground or even just taxing around on the runway? I'm sure there are even worse things one could think of to do with it if one only applied oneself.

If that's not bad enough, I know of an ammo dump of sorts in Rochester, NY, where I live, that is relatively easily accessible if you're creative. Friends of mine stumbled upon it while exploring a set of old abandoned warehouses. They found numerous 500lb bombs that appeared to be practice bombs (I think they said most, maybe all, were painted blue) but also quite a few hand grenades, old ammo, and various random military paraphenalia. All WW2 era stuff, but some of which could be quite lethal in the wrong hands. None of it looks like anyone had even looked at it in 20 years.

I'm not exactly sure how that guy managed to get away with not having the FBI come knocking on his door really, since eBay should have probably reported that, but I am sure that I have zero faith in the various US intelligence agencies.

It's really a case of an impossible job, trying to beat the odds, and relying on terrorists overcomplicating plans and introducing little mistakes. Basically, they just hope the terrorists don't get lucky very often. From the perspective of trying to prevent terrorists bent on your destruction from accomplishing their goals, it's really an impossible task, no matter how good the intellegence agencies are. There's just too much of a luck element.

Honestly, I think that minimizing the desire for these people to kill us is the only thing that will substantially drop the terrorist threat. Draconic measures to reduce the incidence of laser pointer mischief is likely to just tick wrongly-accused people off and accomplish nothing. Or worse, give terrorists ideas they hadn't thought of. (Well, crap, now all the terrorists are gonna be buying foreign military equipment off eBay.)

Re:This is such bullshit

[fm6]

It must be very nice to be the only non-idiot in sight. It saves you from all that time-wasting bullshit -- like stopping to think.

Re:This is such bullshit

[WoodWood]

It is indeed! Thanks for bringing that up!

Parent not Offtopic.

[dynamo_mikey]

Is this problem really so bad that the government needs to start shelling out loads of cash to implement a system against it?

How is the parent Offtopic? He's just questioning the cost/benefit analysis of a "new reporting system for pilots" which is what the article is about.

That's right on point if you ask me. Is this a serious issue that we should be spending tax dollars on? From what I've read, I'm skeptical.

-dynamo

Math is fun!

[SuperKendall]

Hey kids! If a jet is travelling at 500MPH and passes overhead, how long will that dot of light be visible?

Now calculate exactly the angle required to shine a lazer through teh windshield of an aircraft flying overhead without going through the floor!

What have we learned today? If an external laser light is visible at all inside a jet, it means someone is trying hard to keep it on the cockpit (unless of course they are trying to blind passengers which makes little sense from a diobolical standpoint but perhaps would give laser owning idiots the same jollies).

I would also say if you do not have full control of your equipment you probably should not be whipping it out. Or else the kid playing in the tree next to you could have pretty good grounds for a suit against you even if you don't "accidentally" track a jet for five+ seconds.

Laser-guided Missiles

[krautcanman]

Maybe laser-guided missiles installed in the planes would be a great deterrent. Shine a laser at the plane, you get a missile at your front door...

Unless you're in China, in which case they crash an old satellite into your apartment living room: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Oct/109656.ht m

Special glasses is the easy solution

[Supp0rtLinux]

All they need are colored glasses to filter out that particular part of the spectrum. In the same way that red light is used for reading in the darkness and not rendering you blind after, a colorized glass could filter out the green lights. Heck, we wear them in my lab when we work with the lasers. So do the people that make the laser pointers.

Re:Special glasses is the easy solution

[Hank Reardon]

The problem you run into with this is dealing with coherent light; It's not just a matter of coloring the glass. Different materials behave differently at various wavelengths and power levels. Most also behave differently depending on the angle that the light strikes the surface.

I think you might be better off working with some sort of auto-tinting in the glass that opaques above a specific power level at whatever wavelengths seem to have the most chance of causing harm.

"finally something wise"? No.

[SharpFang]

I read the title and thought "wow, a wise thing". Only the summary+article changed that.

Just think: A laser illumination reporting/warning system. Using the kind of lasers that are used at disco to display stuff on the sky to project warnings on the clouds - hurricane, earthquake, flood, contamination, whatever disaster. These things are broadcast through the radio and TV, but people who aren't listening to a radio/watch tv at the moment may peek through the window to identify the "lights on the sky" - and the lights are saying "Chemical alert! Everyone in South-eastern district please move west, out of the way of the poisonous chlorine cloud,"

These things could be put to much better use than "cool pics on the clouds". Of course it would work only at night, but... why not?

Unfortunately "laser illumination reporting" means not reporting by use of laser but having use of laser reported. Stupid.

Re:"finally something wise"? No.

[TheMysteriousFuture]

bwhahahaha haahahahahah ahahahahah

Re:"finally something wise"? No.

[t_allardyce]

It would end up being used for advertising, which would be ironic because most people would boycott a product that forced itself like graffiti in the sky...

Re:"finally something wise"? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

my house has no windows you insensitive clod!

You've got to be kidding me

[TheMysteriousFuture]

EH?

AND disable the autopiloting system AND they probably have a way for the tower to land the plane in case of emergency. Anyone who disagrees with me is a scared little wussie

I VERY MUCH disagree with you. You sir are a harebrained, idiotic, mentally incompetent, ill informed, loony.

A system to land a plane remotely (i.e. from "the tower" has never been deployed on commercial airliners. Furthermore an autopilot is NOT capable of automatically landing a plane at the vast majority of airports.

Re:You've got to be kidding me

[bill_mcgonigle]

A system to land a plane remotely (i.e. from "the tower" has never been deployed on commercial airliners. Furthermore an autopilot is NOT capable of automatically landing a plane at the vast majority of airports.

Nah, they'd only have that if we were serious about airliner terrorism.

Boeing can land a jet on a carrier automatically, so if we were serious about this we'd have it. Pilots would have a "panic switch" that would burn out the manual controls and land at the nearest major airport. Nothing a terrorist could do.

Instead we put steel plates in the cabin doors and confiscate nail clippers from old ladies (OK, I know they 're just looking for mules). Woohoo.

Re:You've got to be kidding me

[CreatureComfort]

Oh, but then if the planes actully could be flown, and landed without pilot intervention, we might think we really didn't need 2 guys making $100,000 a year sitting in the cockpit all the time. The pilot unions can't allow that!

Renier Wolfcastle

[Kohath]

Ach! My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

why?

[Mitsoid]

Someone please tell me WHY someone can face jail time for pointing up at the sky ? I mean, hell, unless you live on the incoming/outgoing path of an airport, chances are the plane is at least 5,000 feet up! Most likely closer to 30-40,000 feet... We, as citizens, should have a right to sit in our back yards--and with no intent of harm--point laser pointers at the sky. I mean, who's the guy that decided to put little white lights on the plane that makes it blend in with stars at night? We cant tell it's a plane, it's 20-40,000 feet away, it's rediculous that we can face penalties for it... I think we are letting terrorism win by being afraid of this, people have been doing this for ages now, but since 9/11, and exagerated media reporting about it, it's now being blown outta proportion.. like the RIAA arresting a 12 year old girl for being some monsterous pirate of intellectual property... If it's really an issue, it's the responsibility of the 'operator' of the vehicle to make sure he can see.. it's not the responsability of someone 40,000 feet away to properly identify a small white blip in the sky as a plane, not a star...

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathematically, it is not likely that you are going to hit a plane 20+K ft. in the air. If you do the calculations, even if you managed to hit the plane, you're not going to light it up but for a very brief moment.

The guy who is currently being charged was being reckless at the least (being that close to an airport with active air traffic, which is much easier to light up) and stupid at the most (thinking its funny to light up an aircraft).

I don't think he deserves jail unless he was doing this on purpose or caused actual harm, but he had disregard for the proximity to an airport.

You are the scaredy cat saftey pussy.

[Anonymous Coward]

FU
Bush Rules!

do they have to let the passengers know?

[jxyama]

just out of curiosity, do the pilots have to let the passengers know if they get lasered but (obviously) not turn into a big accident.

i ask because a friend of mine experienced a plane accelerating to take off after trying to land. after reaching a higher altitude, he heard over the PA that "they had to abort the first landing attempt because there was another plane on the runway." (no joke.)

if they can divulge such information to the passengers, can they do the same about a "hot" topic like being lasered, provided the passengers are safe in the end?

Re:do they have to let the passengers know?

[t_allardyce]

i ask because a friend of mine experienced a plane accelerating to take off after trying to land. after reaching a higher altitude, he heard over the PA that "they had to abort the first landing attempt because there was another plane on the runway." (no joke.)

It happens allot more than you think...

Re:do they have to let the passengers know?

[lucabrasi999]

i ask because a friend of mine experienced a plane accelerating to take off after trying to land. after reaching a higher altitude, he heard over the PA that "they had to abort the first landing attempt because there was another plane on the runway." (no joke.)

First of all, that is not an unusual circumstance. It has happened to me a couple of times. Due to congestion at airports, it is not unusual for pilots to have a short window of time in which to use a runway for takeoff or landing. If they delay for even a second or two, it throws off the whole system and your friend experienced the result. Most passengers sense that something has gone wrong and the pilot will come on and explain the problem.

do the pilots have to let the passengers know if they get lasered but (obviously) not turn into a big accident.

I doubt that they do. In your example, it is something that happens with a fair amount of frequency and there is very little danger associated with suddenly increasing a plane's altititude.

With lasers, there is a significant amount of danger. An announcement indicating that lasers were being pointed at the pilot would probably put some serious fear into the passengers. That fear could result in some serious consequences inside the plane itself.

Re:do they have to let the passengers know?

[ptbarnett]

i ask because a friend of mine experienced a plane accelerating to take off after trying to land. after reaching a higher altitude, he heard over the PA that "they had to abort the first landing attempt because there was another plane on the runway." (no joke.)

It happens all the time, and it isn't a big deal (except for the inconvenience).

At peak hours, a busy airport will have the airplane stacked up on approach about 60 seconds apart. Normally, this provides plenty of time for an airplane to touch down, decelerate, and turn off the runway.

However, any number of factors can cause the landing plane to delay its exit from the runway. For the following plane to commence its landing, the runway must be vacant, even if the first plane is at the other end of the runway and turning off at that moment.

The separation between the planes are designed to give the following plane time to recognize the situation, throttle up and safely go around for another approach.

Re:do they have to let the passengers know?

[Anonymous Coward]

With lasers, there is a significant amount of danger.

No there isn't.

Laser Detectors

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots should use them too.. just like I do when cops shine laser in my eyes on highways.

Handy advice

[DrKyle]

from TFA:

If pilots have a laser pointed at them, the circular strongly advises pilots and air crew to avoid direct eye contact given the health and safety risks posed by some types of lasers.

Who are they getting to write these warnings, my Mom? "Don't look stray dogs in the eye or they might get mad and bite you." I would think this would be common sense, but then again, we are talking about the same people who brought you terrorist-proofing your home with duct tape.

Obligatory song...

[zx-6e]

You light up my life...

Dummy! Lasers Come in Different Colours

[DrInequality]

All they need are colored glasses to filter out that particular part of the spectrum. In the same way that red light is used for reading in the darkness and not rendering you blind after, a colorized glass could filter out the green lights. Heck, we wear them in my lab when we work with the lasers. So do the people that make the laser pointers.

1. Lasers come in different colours
2. The only filter that blocks all colours is black/opaque
3. Blind pilots is a pretty bad idea

OT, but...

[jxyama]

>[insert gun control rant here]

not to flame, but guns differ from cars/knives/laser pointers/chainsaws/etc. because it's primary (and only) function is violent, physical destruction. (close case can be made for controlling chainsaw, but i hope you see my point.) a good argument can be made that the very purpose of guns, as a design, is for "sinister use."

Re:OT, but...

[rhsanborn]

Unfortunately, its less convenient and less effective for me to keep a chainsaw handy to protect my family.

Re:OT, but...

[rhsanborn]

On the other hand, it might have a much more significant deterent effect if people actually used chainsaws to protect their house/family...whoever is chasing you with that chainsaw has to be crazy even to think about using it...crazy enough to use it...

Re:OT, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"a good argument can be made that the very purpose of guns, as a design, is for "sinister use"

You don't know much about arguing, or guns, do you ?

If someone is attempting to rape your wife or abduct your child,
and you are on a lonely road miles from anywhere when this is about to happen ( in other words, there will be no outside help )
then a gun in your possession would be far from sinister. In fact,
the gun could prevent truly sinister things from happening, simply by being there and ready for use if needed.

You, by the way, are not very smart.

Re:OT, but...

[ajlitt]

Actually I agree with you up to the point that there are legal uses for guns, no matter how some might disagree. I'm not into hunting, but I've shot at targets before and had fun doing it. Despite how you feel about either activity, they are legal. Likewise, a bow and arrow can kill, which is something that was required in my high school P.E. class (thus indirectly sanctioned by the state (which happens to be Texas, for what it's worth)). Arrows have no practical purpose other than killing, and it is as illegal to threaten others with one in public as it is a gun or kitchen knife.

When it comes down to it, most governments have a double-standard over what should be considered legal for the public to own and use that may be harmful. Violence and destruction are not in themselves illegal yet, or else football and monster truck shows would be banned.

In the case of laser pointers, the consumer is warned about the dangers on the product (do not stare into beam for class I & II, worse for III and IV) and using them in a weapon-like function, whether intentional or just irresponsibly, is still putting the safety of others into jeopardy.

Re:OT, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of guns discharged by homeowners end up killing a family member rather than an intruder... "guns to protect my family", ha! It's a false sense of security.

Re:OT, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you are not very up on statistics or real-world events as they happen. 80% of handguns discharged for "protection" end up unintenionally killing a family member... The newspapers are full of news reports 10 to 1 of accidental shootings vs robber/rapist/intruder/thief scared off successfully.

Re:OT, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of guns discharged by homeowners end up killing a family member rather than an intruder...

From: http://www.tsra.com/Lott7.htm:

The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense. The 1993 study yielding such numbers, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone he knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in the study were committed with guns brought in by an intruder. No more than 4% of the gun deaths in the study can be attributed to the homeowner's gun.

Also ignored is that 98% of the time when people use a gun defensively, merely brandishing the weapon is sufficient to stop an attack. In less than 1% of the cases is a gun even fired directly at the attacker.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deters murder, robbery and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

Re:OT, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of handguns discharged for "protection" end up unintenionally killing a family member

Cite?

The newspapers are full of news reports 10 to 1 of accidental shootings vs robber/rapist/intruder/thief scared off successfully

And the reason is simple- Most times, simply letting the criminal know you have a gun is enough to scare them away. Many of those case NEVER GET REPORTED. Since those cases are not reported, you never hear of them, and they don't get added to the statistics. On the other hand, the Media loves a good tear-jerker 'child shoots self' story, and will front-page it. These cases get added to statistics easily.

Re:OT, but...

[John Whorfin]

Likewise, a bow and arrow can kill, which is something that was required in my high school P.E. class

Killing was required in your high school PE class?

Damn.

lasik training

[Anonymous Coward]

all the pieces will come together when its realized the 'criminals' are really a band of volunteer optomitrists providing free lasik to pilots who cant take time off work. thats service.

Warning!

[fred fleenblat]

Do not point laser at remaining pilot!

Can anyone explain...

[Sebastopol]

How you actually injure a pilot with a laser?

I can't make out the HEAD of a pilot 100 yards away, let alone bullseye the pupil! Throw in the fact that the plane is moving, and, it just seems unlikely that you could actually hit someone in the face. Maybe if you had a good scope attached to it, and the plane was coming right at you. But still: when a plane takes off or lands, its nose is up; and when a plane is in flight, the cockpit is obscured by the nose of the aircraft. How the heck could you possible hit a pilot square in the pupil with a laser?

Just doesn't seem possible to me. At least, highly unlikely (or very lucky) to actually hit that pupil.

Explain?

Re:Can anyone explain...

[t_allardyce]

This has been argued countless times on slashdot and by just about everyone else. In the end, physics and common sense says no you can't, some pilots however say they have been not only hit with lasers, but tracked for several seconds. It doesn't seem totally impossible that in certain rare circumstances someone could hit a pilot in the eyes, if the beam spreads out quite allot (nothings perfect) and is still powerful enough then its possible, just unlikely. Also helicopters would be a far easier target flying low and hovering. It really doesn't deserve more than a 5 minute news slot though, its just being used as the latest 'terror alert' - remember what you don't know, could kill you!

Re:Can anyone explain...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Have you ever hung out near an airport and watched aircraft land? On final approach, there isn't a whole lot of apparent motion, unti they get quite close. Landing is not that much nose up, until the get close to the ground. With a scope, it wouldn't be too hard to track the cockpit from a good distance off.

Add in scatter off the windshield, and eyes adjusted to night, and a couple of seconds would be enough to screw a pilots night vision, and completely distract him during a critical part of the flight. The workload for a pilot during a landing is quite enough, without throwing in "hey..I can't see the ground!"

Actually injuring/destroying the eyes is not necessary.

Re:Can anyone explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd probably have better luck with one of those million candlepower spotlights that you can plug into a cigarette lighter... Ah crap, now I'm a terrorist. Forget everything you saw here.

Re:Can anyone explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you can't hurt anyone by randomly shooting a gun either.

Re:Can anyone explain...

[t_allardyce]

They wouldnt be anything like runway landing lights would they?..

Re:Can anyone explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't have to injure them, you just have to dazzle them. You apparenlty haven't had someone hit you wtih the high beams at night. you see all the scratches on the windshield and not much else. Now do this at three times the speed while pointed at the dirt. You do'nt even have to hit them on the pupil, just hit the windshield for less then a second and you'll dazzle the pilot.

Re:Can anyone explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever hung out near an airport and watched aircraft land?

Yes, but I always feel like I kinda stick out what with that tripod and long black tube aimed at the airplanes.

Add in scatter off the windshield

and you defeat the purpose

So how will this be handled?

[digitalgimpus]

Now even laser pointers are WMD...

But the majority of business-class america is white middle aged males. :-(

How will they do this? They can't invoke things like the Patriot Act on them. That would be unconstitutional.

Then again... we know every Arab in North America participated in 9/11. Or at least that's what our government has been trying to get us all to believe.

So lets go into random offices, and arrest business men... since we need to get the WMD.

Come on people!

[dostalgic]

I posted a reply to an earlier comment as an Anonymous Coward regarding trying to hit a 4-8 mm target with a ground-based laser pointer. Think about it. Do you really want your pilot to wear goggles that would cut almost half of the visible spectrum? Last time I looked, most commercial planes have cockpit windows above the nose of the plane, making it hard to get a direct bead on a pilots pupil moving at 200-600 km/hr from a handheld device on the ground from hundreds of meters away. This is just a bunch of FUD.

Not THAT stupid

[LoganAlex]

This isn't a case of someone with a laser pointer sitting in their backyard and zapping an airport 15 miles away. THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Let's briefly cover why: A handheld laser pointer is likely not capable of reaching that sort of range. I can't say that for sure, but it's pretty unlikely. Plus, a human hand, or even a tripod, aiming said laser pointer over 15 miles and tracking a jet that's still moving over 100MPH is not something you'd pick up in a matter of minutes. It'd take a lot of practice and intent. Nor is it accidental, you don't point a laser up in the sky and zap a cockpit by accident. You'd hit the bottom of the plane, not the windows. This is talking about things happening on takeoff or landing. What would be necessary for zapping someone's cockpit is a very nice tripod on a flat and level surface, a scope or other optics system, a mechanical assist system to keep the laser steady and move it smoothly, and either the training or computer program to track the plane (dunno that a program to track a specific object like that exists, but I wouldn't doubt it). Then of course you'd need a high powered laser, and not something like a laser pointer (a little LED with a nice lens, last I checked), but an actual gas, dye, or crystal laser. Does someone with that sort of equipment pointed at an aiport sound like just some innocent, wholesome people out to exercise their right to point a laser wherever they want? All that being said, it is pretty useless to tell people not to look at the laser. Kinda like telling someone not to put burning things in their mouth...

Re:Not THAT stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. If your hands are steady enough to watch an airplane with a pair of binoculars, you can hit an airplane with a laser. The problem isn't the $5 lecture hall pointer, it's the 200mW stargazing green ones that reach up into the heavens. And yes, when the airplane is landing, the pilot can see the runway. That means it is possible to hit the windshield, which has cracks, which will scatter the light just like the JACKASS with his HIGH BEAMS coming the other way on the highway.

I think this is a good program.

[RexRhino]

I think this is a great program. Not because I am woried about terrorist blinding airplanes... I think that is highly unlikely. Nor am I worried about lasers in general.

But, freaking out about laser pointers zapping airplanes has no effect on ordinary people. Better to have the government freaking out about lasers, then cracking down on email or the internet because it could be used for terrorism, or hatching some new profiling scheme that results in innocent people being harrassed.

Better to have the government paranoid about something that is extremly obscure and almost no-one has any legit reason for doing (I mean, what is the legit reason for tagging aircraft with lasers?), than have the government paranoid about something that would actually harm our personal liberties.

There is a downside: I am sure that it is going to cost billions of dollars to build the "anti-laser-pointing-at-airplanes" government infrastructure. But it is not like they aren't going to waste the money on something useless anyway. At least this isn't useless AND destructive like so many other things.

And don't mod this +5 funny, mod it +5 insightful! It might be absurd, but it is the truth!

Re:I think this is a good program.

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't mod this +5 funny, mod it +5 insightful!

Hey, mods, can I get +500 funny? My karma could use a boost.
</sarcasm>

lasers...feh

[fearanddread]

I'm more worried about these: Stinger

Can't find WMD's

[Lost Penguin]

It seems we need another subject to distract us from the fact our President lied to us over WMD's in Iraq.
The timing of this "treat" is very suspicious;
Much like the timing of September 11, 2001;
When we wanted answers about the California energy scandal and the Enron links to the Bush administrations "Energy Talks".

FCC?

[LilGuy]

Incredible.

I'm wondering why the FCC hasn't outlawed the common lasers yet... I mean, they regulate the cable industry so heavily that if there is a certain percentage of cable leak, that could POSSIBLY (however unlikely) affect an aircraft overhead, the cable system is shutdown immediately and fined enormous amounts of money until the problem is located and taken care of.

The thing is, usually it isn't the cable company that's at fault... its the moran people messing around with their cable.

So how is it that people selling lasers aren't responsible for the people they sell them to?
I guess my analogy is weak at best, but it still seems to hold SOMETHING.

laser targeting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is way too scary. I'm no frickin' rocket scientist, but I bet that by starting with a notebook computer, a way cool green laser pointer, a DV cam, and something under $10,000 for a wiggling mirror and some outsourced programmer time, one coud have a butt kicking targeting system. Please! I don't want to think about this. Just stop it, everybody, right now. I mean it. Weapons based solutions for disagreements are a really bad idea, all around. Please stop.

In other news...

[KingEomer]

The SlashDOT released a press statement warning of imminent high traffic to US DOT websites.

HOW

[bill_kress]

Okay, I've been wondering something since this story came out.

I can't hold my laser pointer on a car 2 streets down, how the HELL do you come within hundreds of FEET of a plane, let alone hit the cockpit????

Re:HOW

[Anonymous Coward]

If you deflect the laser beam with a vibrating mirror like the raster on a computer monitor, you only have to hit your target once per frame if you KNOW when you hit the target. If you KNOW you hit the target 60 times per second, and exactly where it was every time, that's pretty accurate. All that's left is to have someone sitting somewhere not far from the glidepath of final approach. Don't try this at home, kiddies! The Homeland Security folks will make life not worth living if you do.

Re:HOW

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not knowledgeable in lasers other than what I read on the web. I guess it says for one laser setup at 1mi up the beam could spread to 4ft diameter.

If it is necessary for protection, was not a shutter system developed for satellite cameras against laser
attack?

But I would also like to ask any slashdot pilots the
following.

In previous years what was the number of incidents of distance light source being noticeable or dazzling in the cockpit?

Is it obvious to distinguish beacon lights, auto headlights or police flashers from said laser flashes?

My questions are leading to the possibility that a limited number of incidents of laser pointing may be snowballing into hysteria. I would like some informed comment on the likelihood that this hypothesis could hold true.

Re:HOW

[Anonymous Coward]

most lights on the ground are pretty easy to distingush from 1000 ft. However, when your'e staring at th black hole of a runway without centerline lighting, a laser beam reflecting of the scratches in your windshield are going to fill your whole world with green light.

Re:HOW

[mbstone]

Actually, moving beams (e.g. lasers deflected by optical scanners / mirrors mounted on galvanometers) are considered relatively safe. Per federal regs, your unscanned Class IV high power laser may not be aimed less than 4 ft above the eyeballs of rock concert patrons. But if the beam is scanned to move fast enough (and if there is an electromechanical shutter interlock that prevents a stationary beam from being aimed at the patrons) you can legally lase the audience even with a laser powerful enough to light your cigarette. Jurisdictions that license laser operators (NYS) have test questions as to how much optical radiation is received by a human scanned by a beam of X power moving at Y speed. So the parent post's assertion that a scanned beam maliciously aimed at an aircraft would necessarily blind the pilot might not hold water. As the above poster says, don't try this at home.

Finally

[The-Bus]

Good.

Can we monitor idiot teenagers using these in theatres?

Although to be honest, I haven't seen one of those being used in years, and I usually go to showings where immature teens aren't at the movies (weekday nights late, for example).

Dr. Evil

[Doc Ruby]

Some twit in New Jersey plays his harmless laser on a lowflying plane, and we get a complete "laser warning system" within a couple weeks. Three years into the Terror War, and they still can't put enough metal detectors at the airport gates to avoid doubling the wait time. This whole Terror War is a farce. Eeek, WHERE'S OSAMA? He might have a LASER!

Re:Dr. Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Some twit in New Jersey plays his harmless laser on a lowflying plane, and we get a complete "laser warning system" within a couple weeks

No, it's a rash of many incidents where one resulted in an injury. Are you a complete dumbass? Even the summary mentioned it.

You know, Doc Ruby, you truly are one of the stupidest dumbfucks on Slashdot. Every post you make on any issue is so devoid of fact or comprehension I'm amazed they don't implode and crash the server's hard drive.

A using a Robert Scheer (who is an even bigger ideological cocksucking scumbag than you) link as proof of anything? Cripes, Doc, just slit your wrists right now. You are THAT fucking useless that your only possible positive contribution to the world would be suicide. You are operating on a zero level of inetllect.

Re:Dr. Evil

[Doc Ruby]

Thank you, Anonymous Coward, for representing your vile subspecies so well. Your only worthwhile statement in dispute of my post is just an excuse to post foul, queer, violent and misspelled invective. You have already killed yourself - don't go changing!

A pilot's perspective

[jskiff]

For those who keep saying "this isn't a big deal," or complaining about how infeasible this is, perhaps it would help to read about what actual pilots think?

Professional Pilots Rumour Network: Professional Laser injures Delta pilot's eye thread.

Re:A pilot's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rumour"

Hmmm, as in some half-baked crap from a glorified bus driver? Remember these are the same guys who land at the wrong airfileds and show up shit-assed drunk.

A pilot can be a moron just as much as the next guy.

Re:A pilot's perspective

[hughk]

Yep, but what is really worries them seems to be the high-power jobbies. Get that 20w CO2 laser from these guys or a s/h medical laser and you could really make someone's day.

Re:A pilot's perspective

[crumley]

For a more rational pilot's perspective, take a look at what Salon's "Ask the Pilot" columnist Patrick Smith has to day about the issue. he has three columns on this issue in the past month: December 17, January 4, and January 13. Smith very nicely skewers the sensationalistic nonsense that these laser incidents are some kind of terrorist conspiracy. These events happened before September 11, 2001 and they all seemed to be caused by accident or idiots like the guy in New Jersey.

2003 FAA study

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-400a/Abstracts/2003/ FULL%20TEXT/0312.pdf does not seem to find any significant risks resulting from pilot illumination by consumer grade lasers.

Visible laser on weapons?

[Beve]

Not sure if anyone knows, but do laser guided weapons use visible lasers or IR lasers?

corner reflector on the dash board

[mlush]

subject says it all really

Inane

[kin242]

Instead of sorting out the middle east you are worrying about people shining lasers at airplanes??? The dept of homeland security is doing its job well- increasing paranoia at home to blind the public to crimes committed abroad in their name, and to further enable the restriction of civil liberties.

Re:stupid analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier to purchase and conceal a handgun than a bow and quiver of arrows.

DOT

[Anonymous Coward]

For a moment there, I thought Damage Over Time. Back to WoW for me...

Ahem!

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]my army of sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads[...]

That would be your fleet of sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads.

The things kids these days do to the English language. Sheesh.

Constellation Tours

[Shag]

Remember, if you can use a laser pointer to do a constellation tour, the terrorists have already won.

(Fortunately, air traffic over the Mauna Kea Visitor Information Station, where such things happen nightly, is minimal to zero.)

Deliberate act of reckless endangerment...

[Nick Driver]

Someone please tell me WHY someone can face jail time for pointing up at the sky ?

Can you see why someone should face jail time for standing on an overpass over a busy freeway and dropping buckets of paint onto the windshields of cars passing by underneath?

Thanks in part to the stories being pushed lately in the media, lots of "monkey-see monkey-do" copycats are now deliberately shining lasers into the windshields of airplanes just for kicks.

At night planes have much more than just "little white lights" too. There's a red one on the left wingtip, a green one on the right wingtip, a steady white one on the tail, and also at least one or more flashing stobes that can be either red or white depending on the make, model and vintage of the aircraft. They're practically lit up like Christmas trees and very easy to discern against the stars, especially when you live far enough away from city lights to actually see stars nowadays.

Chaff

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyway.... how long is it before they also recommend, radar and IR detection, as well as chaff and flares for civilian planes??"

If I remember correctly, the Israelis already fit such anti surface-to-air missile defences to commercial jetliners, given how tempting a plane full of israelis would be to certain palestinian terrorists... Old BBC news story here

One more time...

[Firefly1]

As I'd mentioned earlier, and Tom Clancy exhibited in 'Debt of Honor', if you want to blind an airplane crew, you don't even need a laser; one of those high-power xenon lights will do nicely, and has the bonus of being easily passed off as photo/videography equipment.
And that book was written back in 1994...

From the Cockpit

[LifesABeach]

If one looks at the cockpit of ANY commerical jet, you will notice some characteristics that invalidate the use of lazers on pilots.

for example:

1. The cockpit is on the forward top end of the fuselage. We mere mortals are resigned to walking on the ground.

2. There is NO WAY a pilot can stick their head out of a window. The wind sheer would be a very nasty personal event.

3. A Jets air speed is a number greater than 250 knots. That's fast.

4. NOT ALL LAZERS ARE IN THE VISIBLE SPECTRUM.

It sounds like to me that someone has read one Thomas Clancy book to many.