Finland Announces an Anti-Laser Campaign For Air Traffic

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finland Announces an Anti-Laser Campaign For Air Traffic

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday December 21, 2014 @08:03AM from the stop-pointing dept.

jones_supa writes Trafi, the Finnish Pilots' Association, and STUK, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, have launched a joint campaign against air traffic interference with the title "Lasers Are Not Toys." Ilkka Kaakinen from Trafi says that laser pointers interfering with air traffic is a real problem in Finland. "We receive reports of several cases of laser interference every month and every one of them is potentially dangerous," Kaakinen says. Last year, 60 cases of laser pointer interference were reported in Finland, and the figure for this year was at 58 in November. Despite the continuing interference, only one person has been caught misusing a laser pointer in this way in Finland. That single person was not convicted of a crime, as the court was not able to establish intent. Kaakinen says other countries hand down severe punishments for interfering with air traffic, even years-long stretches in prison. He also reminds that it is important for users of laser pointers to understand that the devices are not toys, and that children should be warned of the potential danger in using them irresponsibly – or ideally, not given one at all.

114 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Do not give lasers as gifts to children by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny

And when you do let children use a laser you own, make sure you supervise them closely.

I have a great t-shirt from Meredith Instruments that reads "DANGER! LASER RADIATION! Do not expose beam to remaining eye."
1. Re:Do not give lasers as gifts to children by tlhIngan · 2014-12-21 18:09 · Score: 2
  
  And when you do let children use a laser you own, make sure you supervise them closely.
  I have a great t-shirt from Meredith Instruments that reads "DANGER! LASER RADIATION! Do not expose beam to remaining eye."
  Sadly, most of the arrests have been people in the age of majority - perhaps they had the maturity of children, but they aren't children. Plus, given how expensive they are (several hundred bucks), it generally isn't a children's toy.
  As for those claiming that it's not a problem because no one's lost a life yet - really? Aviation already is built upon the blood of many people, some of whom lost their lives over something as stupid as a light bulb.
  And no, it may not be a direct cause, but it may be the last link of a chain of events that leads to an accident. Every mishap has been a chain - if any one of those things were different, it wouldn't have happened. Perhaps the pilot is in bad weather already trying hard to find the runway and then a flash comes across the cockpit. He blinks, it goes away, and he continues, but what he thinks is the runway is a after glow spot (similar to how a flashbulb causes temporary spots) and boom, crashes the airplane into a building along the glidepath.
  And perhaps someone you know is on that plane.
2. Re:Do not give lasers as gifts to children by Neil+Boekend · 2014-12-21 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  DANGER! LASER RADIATION! Do not expose beam to remaining eye
  The beam might get damaged.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Too many people are still children by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 08:32 · Score: 0

Too much cotton-wool when they were young, they've never grown up and learned to be responsible adults.
And in retaliation .. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-21 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

In retaliation, sharks have implemented an anti-aircraft campaign.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Re:And in retaliation .. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who notices a strong correlation between lasers suddenly becoming Public Enemy Number 1 and the increased use of drone technology?
2. Re:And in retaliation .. by wisnoskij · 2014-12-21 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sharknado!
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
3. Re:And in retaliation .. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yes.
4. Re:And in retaliation .. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  Not funny. Mods please mod parent down.
  Shark laser jokes are embarrassingly lame and stunningly out of date.
5. Re:And in retaliation .. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  You must be new here.
convex lens by jclaer · 2014-12-21 08:41 · Score: 2

Require lasers sold to the public to have a built-in, slightly-divergent lens. That would improve PowerPoint usage too.
1. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Require lasers sold to the public to have a built-in, slightly-divergent lens. That would improve PowerPoint usage too.
  Hard to regulate when you can just order whatever you want from the other side of the world.
2. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Could start with removing the CE mark and or FCC certification for products that do not meet that requirement. That requirement being lasers sold to the public to have a built-in, slightly-divergent lens.
3. Re:convex lens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-21 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  They already have it.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:convex lens by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That won't work because "the public" includes the many tradespeople and professionals that use lasers for surveying, construction, directional antenna alignment, and cat therapy.
5. Re:convex lens by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  They don't.
6. Re:convex lens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-21 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they do. Without a lens, a laser diode's beam would so divergent as to be unusable for most applications.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Laser pointers could be banned in the customs.
8. Re:convex lens by Immerman · 2014-12-21 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  Right. They have a lens to focus the beam into as close to a parallel beam as feasible. jclaer is saying they should be required to have a considerably more divergent beam. How many people have a legitimate use for a laser that can maintain a pencil-sized beam at a couple of miles? There are applications for such a thing, but I doubt most people use the capability as anything other than a dangerous novelty, if at all.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
9. Re:convex lens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-21 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  How many people have a legitimate use for a laser that can maintain a pencil-sized beam at a couple of miles?
  Fortunately, thanks to the laws of physics, such a laser would have to have an aperture of at least 10 to 20 cm, but probably much more, and thus would be very conspicuous.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  That won't work because "the public" includes the many tradespeople and professionals that use lasers for surveying, construction, directional antenna alignment, and cat therapy.
  Yep, it is absolutely impossible to figure out how to separate these into two groups.
  Wait, you just did.
11. Re:convex lens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-21 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  So could powerful flashlights and astronomical telescopes, considering that you could put them together and use the telescope in reverse.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:convex lens by AK+Marc · 2014-12-21 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever watched the laser demonstrations? They all use additional optics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They add in a focusing lens. Nobody quotes how much it spreads out, but they all do based on inherent flaws in the optics already. They are already 6' wide or more at approaching aircraft height, so how wide would you want them? Have you ever tried shining a hand-held laser at the moon? Even if you did, it wouldn't be visible. It spreads out too much.
  
  My solution would be putting cameras on the planes and coating the area around the cockpit with retro-reflective material. Blast the beam back at the sender, and capture where it's coming from.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
13. Re:convex lens by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  But we're all buying from the same places. There is no way to reliably verify that a person is, say, a construction worker. Not without some kind of idiotic heavy-handed government licensing. You want that? Really?
14. Re:convex lens by TeknoHog · 2014-12-21 10:47 · Score: 0
  You think a "lay-ser" beam is divergent? Have you ever considered
  
  This thread
  Your mom's thighs
  The hemispheres of my skull as the zombie slashdotters attack me after this post
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
15. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no. First off, too many people have lasers already.
  Two, I do need lasers with as narrow a beam as possible, for PowerPointless I keep it at an angle to the screen for better effect.
  Three, people will just yank them and put the proper optics in place if they don't already contain the proper optics because they'd be freaking useless with that lens.
  Four, industrial lasers are sold to the public and divergent lenses on those are dangerous to equipment and people.
16. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a student who does need high power, highly focused lasers for reasons unrelated to my studies. Trying to figure out if I have a legitimate reason to own such things would require having far more data about me than any one group has or should have.
17. Re:convex lens by ShanghaiBill · 2014-12-21 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to regulate when you can just order whatever you want from the other side of the world.
  A solution does not have to be perfect to be useful. A divergent lens wouldn't eliminate 100% of the problem, but it would eliminate 90%. It would also make it easier to prosecute the remaining 10%, since a perp will have a harder time claiming that aiming it at an aircraft was unintentional, if they intentionally ordered a non-divergent laser pointer from another country rather than buying a divergent laser from a local shop.
18. Re:convex lens by ShanghaiBill · 2014-12-21 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever tried shining a hand-held laser at the moon? Even if you did, it wouldn't be visible. It spreads out too much.
  But what if everyone pointed a laser at the moon, at the same time?
19. Re:convex lens by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  ShanghaiBill: you misunderstand the problem. The beam is already diverged owing to imperfections of the laser collimating optics. That makes the problem worse for pilots, because the beam is still very bright but at distance becomes 6' or more in diameter, making it very easy to target aircraft. It's the temporary blinding effect that is so dangerous, where pilots are unable to read their instruments for a critical period during takeoff or landing. It's happened to me, and is like having a bright searchlight suddenly flood the cockpit, destroying night vision and rendering instruments unreadable. You can find youtube videos illustrating the effect.
20. Re:convex lens by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Immerman and kyosuke: Yes, the beam is already diverged owing to imperfections of the laser collimating optics. That's not the same thing as adding deliberately diverging optics. As I noted elsewhere, divergence makes the problem worse for pilots, because the beam is still very bright but at distance becomes 6' or more in diameter, making it very easy to target aircraft.
21. Re:convex lens by Opportunist · 2014-12-21 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  And DVD drives? CD drives?
  Getting your hand on a powerful laser diode ain't so hard. Thought it would admittedly be easier to just replace that lens...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
22. Re:convex lens by AK+Marc · 2014-12-21 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  He assumes lasers light up the whole surface evenly, not that they remain pencil-thin indefinitely. But yes, I had seen that. I also know that we have seen lasers reflect off the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
23. Re:convex lens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-21 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's significantly diverging primarily because of the laws of physics. Even "perfect" optics wouldn't help because you can't simultaneously have a small aperture and a low-divergence beam. And I'm acutely aware that increasing its divergence only exacerbates the problem, that's why I concluded some time ago that it's a dumb thing to do.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
24. Re:convex lens by beelsebob · 2014-12-21 13:36 · Score: 2
  
  Are you suggesting that we simply list the professions that are allowed to have a genuine focused laser? If so, what happens when a spargeborgler (some new profession that critically relies on focused lasers) comes along? These laws always take years to get updated, leave horrible loop holes, and leave some people with genuine need out on the cold. If you can't express a general way to separate the groups, and have to revert to listing specifics, you're probably doing it wrong.
25. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the divergence from consumer lasers comes from the optics and cheap design of the laser. Even some expensive lasers can still be twice the divergence or more of an ideal Guassian beam without additional spatial filtering. Still, a diffraction limited 600-ish nm laser that starts as 2 mm can go a kilometer and still be about 10 cm in size.
26. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Excluding cat therapy,none of those uses require handheld lasers. Actually, they're all for alignment, and therefore you want them secured (with a tripod or something).
  Cat therapy, presentations, and play all require short distance, hand-held operation. The laser pointers in these cases are approximately finger-sized. Industrial/technical uses mainly require longer distance, portable-but-not-hand-held operation. They are not the kind of things one would idlely pick up and point at an airplane with.
27. Re:convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  It would probably still reduce the amount of laser trolls, as you would have to be more determined to gobble together a working laser pointer.
28. Re:convex lens by some+old+guy · 2014-12-22 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  The gods themselves strive in vain to improve PowerPoint usage.
  
  --
  Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
29. Re:convex lens by kimvette · 2014-12-22 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  astronomers, astrophotographers, hunters, target shooters, etc.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
My Cat Disagrees by zAPPzAPP · 2014-12-21 08:48 · Score: 1

pew pew pew
Just use filters by d18c7db · 2014-12-21 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

All popular lasers operate at very specific wavelengths. Can they not build a filter in the aircraft window to attenuate the 635nm, 532nm and 445nm wavelengths? Or is that is too expensive, how about the cheap and obvious way, require pilots to wear special laser filter goggles during takeoff/landing. Problem solved?
1. Re: Just use filters by Teranolist · 2014-12-21 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why put the costs onto tax paying companies where you can bother tax paying citizens?
2. Re:Just use filters by d18c7db · 2014-12-21 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I just did a quick search and this is already being looked into. http://www.laserpointersafety....
3. Re:Just use filters by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 09:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Googles won't work, and neither will a filtering windshield. They'll just obscure vision. The wavelengths are all over the spectrum. The only thing that would filter them all is a piece of steel. Tough to land that way.
  
  Even if you could protect pilots, what about the rest of the public? As with any dangerous product, the answer is not to make the general public armor themselves, but to simply demand responsibility from the product owners. Your idea is like requiring police to wear bullet-proof helmets so that children can have unfettered use of guns.
  
  As with firearms and drones, people too stupid to use lasers responsibly should not be allowed to use them at all. But also as with guns and drones, the answer is not prohibition. It's education. You should be required to demonstrate safe lasing knowledge before buying, just as you must to buy a handgun most places.
4. Re:Just use filters by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Googles will work, and are excellent for education. Goggles won't work. ;)
5. Re:Just use filters by sconeu · 2014-12-21 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  My EYES!!!!! The goggles do NOTHING!!!!!
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
6. Re:Just use filters by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad lasers blasted your eyes and you can't read. You would have read that we're talking about all-spectrum goggles. You should have paid attention to the t-shirt ;)
7. Re:Just use filters by TeknoHog · 2014-12-21 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  Googles won't work, and neither will a filtering windshield. They'll just obscure vision. The wavelengths are all over the spectrum. The only thing that would filter them all is a piece of steel. Tough to land that way.
  What if you just used steel windshields, along with Googles Earth to find out where you're at? I don't see any problem with
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
8. Re: Just use filters by Opportunist · 2014-12-21 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  This is some Scandinavian country, not the US.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re: Just use filters by Shakrai · 2014-12-21 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Finland is a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian one....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
10. Re: Just use filters by lapm · 2014-12-21 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Last i check Finland was still part of Scandinavia...
11. Re:Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  Your idea is like requiring police to wear bullet-proof helmets so that children can have unfettered use of guns.
  
  Reasonable protection is not mutually exclusive with other options like education and restriction of access. Police still wear body armor in many situations. Someone paralleling your argument would say it is impossible for a person to wear body armor, because they would need thick steel plates that could block anything caliber of weapon. Instead, police just wear stuff that will protect them from the most likely threats they will encounter (which is why say prison guards opt for gear that protects against stabbing instead of bullets). Likewise, for protecting pilots, you could pick a couple common wavelengths and block a majority of consumer lasers, even if lasers come in nearly every visible wavelength for those that have money and knowledge to get more esoteric kinds. And while I am quite familiar with how inconvenient and vision limiting laser goggles can be for laser safety, they are also typically designed for optical densities of 6 or more (i.e. the let in less than one part per million of the wavelength they are designed for), which is not needed for blocking against the light levels pilots might be exposed to. There are already a few such glasses on the market which have reasonable visibility and color clarity despite blocking half a dozen common wavelengths with a 2-3 optical density.
12. Re:Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  >people too stupid to use lasers responsibly should not be allowed to use them at all.
  I don't know anyone capable of using a 1000 miliwatt pocket laser safely, myself included. All it takes is one glance, or one reflection and blam your vision is damaged.
13. Re: Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Last i check Finland was still part of Scandinavia...
  Check again.
14. Re:Just use filters by sconeu · 2014-12-21 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  And too bad you don't know your Radioactive Man!!!
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
15. Re: Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it is part of Fennoscandia, not scandinavia.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennoscandia
16. Re: Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry about these hecklers; there is a certain racism amongst these people that raises their hackles whenever anyone tries to claim Finland is part of Scandinavia. Dig deeper into the history of relations between the nordic countries and you'll see a sad legacy of mistreatment towards the Finns that still lingers to this day.
17. Re:Just use filters by Neil+Boekend · 2014-12-21 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  1. Practical lasers are in just a few frequencies. Not all over the spectrum. They are NOT light bulbs. Filtering works.
  2. The rest of the public is not the problem. The problem is not damaging of eyes. It's seeing nothing because the whole freaking windshield lights up.
  Having said that, education should indeed be part of the solution.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
18. Re:Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Practical lasers are in just a few frequencies. Not all over the spectrum.
  Practical lasers these days are all over the spectrum, I get fancy diagrams of just how various businesses cover the whole visibile and NIR spectrum with their laser products every time I get spammed catalogs from laser companies. And you can even get single lasers that are like a "light bulb", as supercontinuum lasers are off the shelf now. Ones that random idiots can afford brand new on the other hand, are very limited, with probably 90% at two wavelengths. Glasses that cover half a dozen common wavelengths already exist for pilots. Random, lazy idiots can be protected against, and it shouldn't even cost that much. People will have to accept it isn't perfect though, and someone who truly is malicious and puts some thought into it could still get second hand lasers of other wavelengths pretty cheaply (and it will only get cheaper in the future).
19. Re:Just use filters by mbeckman · 2014-12-22 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  1. While fixed-frequency laser pens are popular now, tunable dye lasers can operate at any wavelength. They're widely available on the surplus market from medical devices, and you can readily buy larger laser modules of hundreds of miliwatts. And even pen lasers now operate in shades of yellow, purple, blue and orange, in addition to green and red. Filters must be tuned to a small wavelength range, and each color range would require several filter layers. Blocking all would result in opacity.
  
  Filtering is not an option. If we don't want to see wholesale banning of laser sales, we'd better get started with education.
  
  2. Eyes of both pilots and drivers have been damaged many times. Laser exposure to the rest of the public is already part of the problem.
20. Re:Just use filters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  . And even pen lasers now operate in shades of yellow, purple, blue and orange, in addition to green and red. Filters must be tuned to a small wavelength range, and each color range would require several filter layers. Blocking all would result in opacity.
  
  Products exist already exist that block half a dozen wavelength lasers or more, (e.g. this one and others linked before in comments responding to these stories, with some performing much better than even that one, although most search results block red and green only which would still block most incidents).
but they ARE toys by swell · 2014-12-21 09:36 · Score: 1

No government decree will convince people that a cheap laser pen is not a toy.
Are lasers not also dangerous to airline passengers? Of the 60 cases of 'laser interference' how many were blinded or otherwise injured? And why are Finnish pilots looking out the window?

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
1. Re:but they ARE toys by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that airplane accidents are extremely rare and when happened, they usually are caused by an unique chain of events, where one event alone wouldn't caused the crash. The laser pointers alone may not be enough to cause a plane crash normally, but in a critical moment they may be.
  Even a minor distraction or problem can be fatal:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJnPH5ud2W0
2. Re:but they ARE toys by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Swell: try this experiment. Get on a busy freeway during nighttime rush hour. Now point two high-intensity flashlights directly to into your retinas for thirty seconds. Then try driving.
  
  It's not eye damage we're worried about. It's collision damage from the aircraft careening into a parking structure during final approach, killing everyone on board.
3. Re:but they ARE toys by Opportunist · 2014-12-21 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, like, when you're driving in a rainy night with the oncoming traffic's lights reflecting off the wet ground?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:but they ARE toys by bws111 · 2014-12-21 11:36 · Score: 2
  
  I hope you are not claiming that that situation does not lead to crashes.
5. Re:but they ARE toys by Opportunist · 2014-12-22 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  No, but very obviously the situation is FAR more commonplace and so far crashes are small enough in numbers that even insurance companies didn't cause an outcry about it, so it can't be that bad.
  And yes, I take insurance companies' revenue as an indicator of whether a situation is dangerous, not people dying. Simply because there is way more pressure on politics if the former starts to cause a problem...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A pilot checking in here by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-12-21 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am not condoning this behaviour, and as a pilot would be royally pissed (if I wasn't dead) if someone did this while I was flying. But I recently got a bright green laser and love to see just how far I can shoot the beam to hit things. Basically if it is a clear moonless night I can pretty much hit a target out to the horizon. But if I were a bit of a dimwit I could clearly see the temptation to try and hit airplanes in that it would be cool to hit something moving and at that height.

So while punishing people who do this I certainly hope they take into consideration that most people doing this would not be criminal terrorists so much as criminally stupid. Thus the proper punishment most of the time should be to scare the crap out of them and then ban them from owning a laser pointer for a decade or two. Keep in mind that the goal will be to prevent the dimwits from doing it again; it is generally quite hard to prevent them from being dimwitted and thus identifying the occasional dimwit and training him will be far more effective than trying to somehow reach the dimwits and convince them from doing it trough draconian laws which will largely serve to make the dimwit's lives far worse than they already probably are.

For instance when flying the reports are that the lasers often are coming from trailer parks vs the nice end of town.
1. Re:A pilot checking in here by Livius · 2014-12-21 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  most people doing this would not be criminal terrorists so much as criminally stupid.
  The crime is attempted second-degree murder. There's more to it than stupidity.
2. Re:A pilot checking in here by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-12-21 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  You must be an puritanical American who has been brainwashed that all sinners need to be punished old testament style. How about thinking with your brain for once and asking, which is better for society: To take some dimwit and throw him into the justice system which will chew him up and destroy whatever small(especially in America) chance he had for even a crummy life, or to educate him into being a better citizen and send him on his way?
  
  And before you even spend one keystroke defending America, 70% of Americans approve of the recent torture that was revealed. So my suggestion to you is to stop listening to your American Echo chamber and regurgitating the rhetoric that either the left or the right have told you to regurgitate.
  
  I live in Canada and feel sick every time our present government adopts another American flavoured policy and it makes me sick when normally genuinely free countries do the same.
  
  And your grandmother wears army boots!
3. Re:A pilot checking in here by Neil+Boekend · 2014-12-21 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly have no idea how stupid people can be. For research purposes I advise going to a beach party in summer.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
4. Re:A pilot checking in here by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-21 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  If it's a moonless night and presumably the target you are aiming for is unlit (so you can see the beam reflecting off it) then you are firing blind. There could be someone stood there, or in the 5km (3 miles) or more to the target.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:A pilot checking in here by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-12-22 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  I will save my concern for people stumbling around in the dark on an uninhabited island for the 22nd of never. You must be one of those health and safety types.
I'm sick of this by Charliemopps · 2014-12-21 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sick of this bullshit myth.
Lasers do not cause Aircraft to crash.
It's never happened, it never will happen. I can't even focus my pen laser on my cat that's 10 feet away from me for more than a split second. Hitting the windshield of an aircraft that's at least 1000 yards away and traveling at at least 200mph?!?! At worst, you have a 1 in a billion chance of nailing the pilot directly in the retina, so yes, you shouldn't do it because that might annoy him. But it's not going crash the plane even if that happened.
Now, for all of you that are going to tell me I'm dumb and don't know what I'm talking about... Please provide evidence. Has any plane ever had an accident as a result of a laser? Any? I've heard from some irritated pilots, and I can understand that... I'd be irritated to. But to claim there was any chance of an accident and we need to limit consumer freedom to harmless technology, just so we don't annoy pilots? That's a joke.
And, I'm willing to offer evidence myself:
2013 Egyptian protests. Snipers on buildings and in helicopters we targeting opposition leaders. As a result, protesters started buying cheap green laser pointers in the market and using them to highlight Sniper and helicopter positions. Eventually, so many lasers would be focused on passing helicopters they looked like this:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/sta...
and here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This went on every night for months. Dozens of aircraft, thousands of lasers focused on them continually... but not one single crash. None.
There's absolutely no way these laser pointers could cause a crash... and if they could, the NTSB should immediately require all aircraft to be retrofitted with polarized sheets on the inside of the pilots window. It'd cost a couple of dollars per aircraft and wouldn't infringe on the personal freedoms of the general population.
1. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  retrofitted with polarized sheets on the inside of the pilots window.
  This wouldn't do much, be cause the polarization angle of a laser being pointed at the aircraft would have a random polarization angle, assuming it is even linearly polarized or polarized at all in the first place. You would basically halve the intensity of all light from the pilot's normal view, and a ~50-50 chance of dimming the light from a laser, with even a less chance of actually making it invisible (a bright flash that is reduced in intensity by 75% might still be problematic).
2. Re:I'm sick of this by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 10:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Dear sick: you are dumb and don't know what you're talking about. The risk is not pilot eye damage. It's pilot distraction or temporary blinding during a critical phase of flight. As a helicopter pilot, I can tell you that every phase of flight in a helo is critical, as we typically fly at 500' AGL by law and are constantly looking for obstacles to avoid. A laser that makes me not see and avoid the power lines ahead will kill me just as effectively as if it had been a photon torpedo fired from the USS Enterprise.
  
  When an airliner is landing, this is also a critical phase of flight. Blinding the pilot then will make it impossible to read instruments, possibly if not probably resulting in the aircraft departing from the glide slope and runway centerline and into a collision with airport surroundings.
  
  You're right that no aircraft in the US has been shot down yet by a laser, although some pilots have suffered permanent eye damage. This is where the part about you being dumb comes in. See, intelligent people try to be pro-active about foreseeable disasters and take action before anyone, even a dumb person, dies. So we're just looking out for you. Pity you're too dumb to realize that.
3. Re:I'm sick of this by TeknoHog · 2014-12-21 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Lasers do not cause Aircraft to crash.
  
  People cause Aircraft to crash.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
4. Re:I'm sick of this by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 10:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Dear Sick: if you had bothered to put on your Google goggles you could have easily found instances of pilot eye damage:
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/News/jet...
5. Re:I'm sick of this by bws111 · 2014-12-21 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Do you understand the difference between 'has not happened' and 'can not happen'? There are many instances of accidents caused by things that you would think could not cause an accident.
  Is a laser by itself likely to bring down a plane? No. Can a laser be the last straw that causes a crash when the pilots are already dealing with some other problem? Yes.
  Look into the history of air crashes and educate yourself. Except for mechanical failures a whole bunch of crashes are caused by multiple small things that individually would not be a problem.
6. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  I can't even focus my pen laser on my cat that's 10 feet away from me for more than a split second.
  I can, so you must be doing it wrong! (yes I'm serious)
7. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  Now, for all of you that are going to tell me I'm dumb and don't know what I'm talking about... Please provide evidence.
  
  The evidence of your ignorance of the topic is that you said:
  
  and if they could, the NTSB should immediately require all aircraft to be retrofitted with polarized sheets on the inside of the pilots window.
  
  Polarized windows wouldn't help. Some of the time you could get lucky and it would make the laser dimmer compared to the mostly unpolarized light from the environment, it would take a lot of luck for it to much more than half of the laser, and at other times it will make the laser appear relatively brighter because it will be blocking more environmental light while letting most of the laser light through through. Some planes already have polarized windows in the cockpit though, and quite a few pilots wear polarized sun glasses, although it is an endless debate about whether to wear polarized sun glasses while piloting, and depends on how distracting patterns in the windshield protective films are and what type of displays you have in the cockpit.
8. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you're trying to debunk a supposed myth with unfounded misinformation to say the least, is laughable.
9. Re:I'm sick of this by isoloisti · 2014-12-21 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't agree more. Just consider the jitter from your hand. If I shine a laser pointer at a wall 20ft away the dot jitters about plus or minus half an inch. At 1000 yards that's plus or minus 6 feet. Pretty much impossible to hold it steady enough so that the pilot would even notice.
10. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  Two things:
  Beam spread. It's significant at 1000 yds.
  Cumulative exposure. A laser isn't a one-shot deal. Doesn't matter if it's "steady." So long as you're constantly tracking the plane, the laser will continue to flash in the eyes of the pilots.
11. Re:I'm sick of this by Charliemopps · 2014-12-21 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  An FAA preliminary incident report described the pilot's injury as minor but did not provide details.
  Yea, sounds like it burned his eye right out.
12. Re:I'm sick of this by Charliemopps · 2014-12-21 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not just no aircraft in the US, no aircraft in the world has had anything more than a pissed off pilot at landing.
  You seem to be arguing like I'm saying people should target aircraft at landing with lasers, its no big deal. Re-read what I said... I mentioned at least twice that you shouldn't do this. Stupid kids do this sort of thing. But this is heading in a very predictable direction. They are trying to ban consumer lasers with this lame excuse. Is there a possibility that the right laser, hits the right pilot, and distracts him enough that it really does cause some sort of problem? Yes it's remotely possible... but the chances are so remote that I feel safe in saying it will never happen.
  But like I said, if you want to be ultra-super safe... install polarized plastic lenses over the windscreens. Remember we used to stick them on laptop screens? They cost about $5 each. But they haven't done that yet... why? Because the risk is so remote it's not even worth spending $5 to protect against. Do you think the owners of multi-million dollar jet liners would risk their aircraft when the fix was so simple if it were really a threat?
13. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Remember we used to stick them on laptop screens? They cost about $5 each. But they haven't done that yet... why?
  Because that only works if you know a priori what polarization you are trying to block or control? There are plenty of non-polarization based privacy screen films too, but considering the main issue is with glare coming diffusively off the windscreen, you can't block every direction of light, and you can't block the main direction from the ground since you need to see part of that when landing...
14. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  But they haven't done that yet... why?
  They haven't done that because it would do jack shit for lasers but would impact visibility. If it blocked the angles coming from the ground, landing gets a bit harder, while still not blocking the whole windshield lighting up from light reflecting off of dust and scratches, which is what allows the laser to kill visibility in the first place.
15. Re:I'm sick of this by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Even a minor eye injury could end his flying career.
16. Re:I'm sick of this by squash_me_quickly · 2014-12-21 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares if the chance of hitting the planes if incredibly small... using this argument it should be legal to stand in your garden with a blindfold, and shoot at your house with a BB gun. The chance of hitting a window would be small, the chance of hitting you even smaller, so if one did hit you it would be an "accident".
  About the "jitter from your hand" argument... what if one has the laser pointer mounted on something that is easy to aim... like a riffle. Rifles are designed to be held steady, even a toy would do.
  Considering that only a complete moron would point a laser at plane, shouldn't this be something that one bans "just because its a good idea". Exactly why would one be stupid enough argue the case that "because no-one had died yet, it probably isn't a problem".
  ps. could you give us the licence plate number of your car, so that we know to point lasers at you if you drive by.
17. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  Excellent reply. You nailed it on the head.
  "Sick" is as dumb as a piece of shit.
18. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  The moron has forgotten that a laser pointer isn't a perfect small dot, but will expand with distance. When the target is miles away, the dot will be quite large. Basic physics and mathematics will show him this, but there's no point in responding to an idiot.
19. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  You're an idiot and whoever is upvoting you should be ashamed of themselves. The dot from the laser pointer will expand quite significantly with distance, as basic physics and mathematics would show you, and it will be quite large at the distance of airplanes. It's therefore not particularly difficult to hit them. You could try basic googling, or reading the Wikipedia article on the subject.
20. Re:I'm sick of this by zlenko · 2014-12-21 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  What?! 5000 feet?! This story is utter BS. Let's take, for example, specifications for Wicked Lasers Krypton ("The Krypton is the world's most powerful green handheld laser", priced $999). "Beam Distance 0.25 Lux - 47475 meters". Let's assume that the beam was from the ground at about 45 degrees. This gives the distance of about 7000 feet. (47475 / (0.3048 * 7000)) * (47475 / (0.3048 * 7000)) * 0.25 - this gives about 120 lux. To put this into perspective, direct sunlight is more than 32000 lux. Yes, laser is a point source and Sun is not exactly but that should not matter with such a difference.
21. Re:I'm sick of this by serviscope_minor · 2014-12-21 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  All you've done is provide evidence of some pilot's eye getting damaged.
  You have failed to provide any evidence about how you need eyes to fly a plane OR any evidence about crashes due to pilots being unable to see.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
22. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  this gives about 120 lux. To put this into perspective, direct sunlight is more than 32000 lux.
  
  And nighttime illumination is 1 lux, so lighting up a windshield with 100+ lux will kill visibility at least which is the main complaint from pilots trying to land. This gives that it has a beam diameter of about 3 m at 7000 ft, which is actually rather crappy considering a diffraction limited setup would give you a size a sixth of that. Of course cheap stuff will not come close to diffraction limited, but usually within a factor of 2 or 3 is easy and cheap, not a factor of 6. A couple watts at a spot size of ~ 1-2 m can reach the damage threshold in the visible range, especially if one is unlucky with specular reflections in an environment (e.g. scratches in a windshield). And this seems relevant to me even if that is beyond Wicked Laser's specs, because ignoring Wicked Laser's BS hype, I've seen far more second hand frequency doubled medical and industrial Nd:YAG systems in the wilds than Wicked Laser's stuff, as people get them cheap off eBay and convert them into use for parties and entertainment. Some of them are repaired by people who know a lot (with stories of finding dead mosquitos around the output of the laser at the end of a night...), but I've gotten a few too many questions from people who already bought one for less than $`k and want to know how to make it work without having any experience with lasers.
23. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  "What happens is that pinpoint spreads out as it gets up higher and farther away, and what may seem like a very faint light to you, in a cockpit, gets almost blinding," San Francisco International Airport spokesman Mike McCarron said
  From the article http://abcnews.go.com/News/jetblue-pilot-suffers-eye-injury-from-green-laser/blogEntry?id=16793227 mentioned below
24. Re:I'm sick of this by zlenko · 2014-12-22 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  > lighting up a windshield with 100+ lux will kill visibility at least which is the main complaint from pilots trying to land
  No, the main complaint in the discussed article was eye injury (that cannot happen), not losing visibility for a minute.
  
  > A couple watts at a spot size of ~ 1-2 m can reach the damage threshold in the visible range
  No, they cannot. The limit for a fully dilated pupil is 9 mm which means 2000 mW / (1000 / 9) / (1000 / 9) = 0.162 mW of laser power enter the eye for a very short moment. Class II is 1 mW so even taking into account beam imperfections such a blast is significantly weaker. Learn basic math please.
25. Re:I'm sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  > lighting up a windshield with 100+ lux will kill visibility at least which is the main complaint from pilots trying to land No, the main complaint in the discussed article was eye injury (that cannot happen), not losing visibility for a minute.
  Learn to read... as this clearly stated that that sentence was referring to a common complaint by pilots, not the particular article.
  
  Class II is 1 mW so even taking into account beam imperfections such a blast is significantly weaker. Learn basic math please.
  MPE is for visible region is 1 mW / cm^2, which can be reached with single digit watts into a meter diameter beam, assuming the beam is evenly distributed and has no potentially reflecting surfaces involved. Considering how there is typically at least a factor of 2 variation in beam intensity across such beams, especially at those distances, you're looking at crossing the threshold with a couple watts now. Any potential reflecting surfaces such as a window or other items can really mess that up, and can greatly increase, which is how a class 2M laser can end up hurting someone or damaging equipment because a small tools was left in a large beam. Basic math doesn't do much for you if you don't know what the numbers mean or their relevance.
26. Re:I'm sick of this by zlenko · 2014-12-24 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  > Learn to read... as this clearly stated that that sentence was referring to a common complaint by pilots, not the particular article.
  Do it yourself - the comment I answered to was only about eye damage and the title of the referenced article is "Pilot Has Eye Injury From Green Laser".
  
  > MPE is for visible region is 1 mW / cm^2, which can be reached with single digit watts into a meter diameter beam, assuming the beam is evenly distributed and has no potentially reflecting surfaces involved.
  Wow, now it is "single digit" watts, there is certainly a progress over "a couple of watts". But no, it cannot be reached, it would be 0.7 mW / cm^2 from a 9W laser in the specified conditions. Just learn basic math as I told you :D.
Re:A gun nut checking in here by PPH · 2014-12-21 10:23 · Score: 1

But I recently got a Barrett M82A1 and love to see just how far I can shoot the .50 cal rounds to hit things.
Does this version sound any better?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:A gun nut checking in here by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-12-21 11:43 · Score: 1

I would have thought that your analogy would have required an extra special level of dimwit except:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

and then there is this nincompoopery:

http://m.wpxi.com/videos/news/...

But my thing is that I like to shoot a laser across say a body of water at the storage building miles away which presuming some common sense results in zero harm. But few would debate the harm in shooting up at an airplane. The key being that a few would debate the harm; a few dimwits. But assuming no harm few would debate that hitting things with a laser is fun as many would think that hitting things with a 50 cal would be fun too. Just clearly more dangerous.
convex lens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 13:02 · Score: 0

no,fuck you
What the problem? by lapm · 2014-12-21 13:24 · Score: 1

Real problem? Haven seen even single reported case in news....
1. Re:What the problem? by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  There are many reports of SERIOUS, career-ending eye damage to pilots due to lasers. Here's just one, why not google your heart out until you're convinced the threat is real. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
2. Re:What the problem? by mbeckman · 2014-12-21 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Naval Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly and Canadian helicopter pilot Capt. Pat Barnes suffered eye injuries hours after an aerial surveillance mission to photograph a Russian merchant ship that had been shadowing the ballistic-missile submarine USS Ohio in Washington state’s Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Navy recently turned down an appeal from the Defense Department inspector general to award Cmdr. Daly a Purple Heart for the incident. Cmdr. Daly, who retired from the service last year, continues to suffer eye pain and deteriorating vision.
3. Re:What the problem? by squash_me_quickly · 2014-12-21 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why does there need to be a "problem", there is no "good reason" to point lasers at planes.
  If you have a car, please post your licence plate number so that we can make an objective study of whether you will crash if people point lasers at your car.
4. Re:What the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  A handheld laser was responsible for the incidents in the link you provided? Not stated in the article you reference. I'd hazard a guess that whatever came from that Russian ship was in another league altogether so not really a good argument.
Don't know much, do you? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 23:25 · Score: 0

A laser point is dangerous because the small amount of light is in a small area, therefore intense. Couple of mm across.
When spread to 2000mm across, that light is less intense to a factor of something approaching 1 million times. I.e. very dim.
So, yes, a 6' beam is easier (but still almost impossible) to aim, but that rather kills the ability for it to blind people.
1. Re:Don't know much, do you? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  , that light is less intense to a factor of something approaching 1 million times. I.e. very dim.
  A 1 W, 2mm diameter beam is almost a million times the safety fluence limit though... usually those limits have a factor of ten below damage thresholds to help account for unfortunate alignment and reflections, but those do still have a chance of happening.
2. Re:Don't know much, do you? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-22 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Considering an unsteady hand, perhaps you shouldn't be thinking about it in terms of a quadratic relationship but rather in terms of a linear one? Hint: draw the geometry of the light spot passing over the eye in both cases.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
I have several powerful class 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 00:25 · Score: 0

It's a hobby of mine, I sometimes use them outdoors, but I am very careful to turn them off immediately when I see an aircraft. I hate idiotswho abuse them, this is why we can't have nice things.
They are not playthings, indoors even looking at the spot on the wall can cause eye damage. A casual reflection off a shiny object while waving it around can put your eye out. I always use proper laser safety goggles when operating them indoors.