Slashdot Mirror
Laser Strikes On Aircraft Increasing In Frequency (usatoday.com)
puddingebola writes: The FAA is reporting a record number of laser strikes on aircraft for 2015. From the article: "The Federal Aviation Administration recorded 5,352 laser strikes through Oct. 16, up from 2,837 for all of 2010. ... Some airports have reported more than 100 laser strikes this year: Los Angeles had 197; Phoenix had 183; Houston had 151; Las Vegas had 132, and Dallas-Fort Worth had 115. On July 15, during a 90-minute period, 11 airliners and one military aircraft reported laser strikes near New York City-area airports. Those incidents remain under investigation by the FAA, FBI and New Jersey state police."
So do they count a laser the happens to be shined 'near' a plane or are these all directly aimed at/in the cockpit? They specifically not that none of the over 5k "strikes" caused any injury so if any actually penetrated the cockpit they didn't hit any eyes. I'm picturing pilots reporting a laser that they happen to see nearby. I have an extremely powerful laser that finds itself pointing at the sky all the time. I'd never shine one at a plane anyway but most of the time I have comfort in the fact my laser shining straight upward couldn't hit a pilot's eyes anyway unless they happened to be banking at the wrong time. Only time I'd even have a good angle is on take-off or landing. SO long rambling run-on question later: What do they define as a "Laser Strike" how intentional / directed does it have to be or are the standards for a "strike" fairly low?
>> are people doing this out of a really bad intention or are just not intelligent enough to understand the risks and the sentences they are facing
Both. These are the same people who like tossing bricks onto cars from the overpass.
Where are the statistics about the blinded pilots and crashed planes? Without these facts there is no way to tell if there is a problem.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I consider a laser strike to be a laser weapon being used to shoot down a plane. If they are calling people pointing at constellations who can't even see the planes at night "laser strikes" they should be prepared to be laughed into we don't care mode by pretty much everyone. It isn't like these are attacks.
These are the same people who like tossing bricks onto cars from the overpass.
Or any other type of vandal: they're losers who have no other way to get the thrill of imposing their will. It's their only shot at being alpha males.
Maybe this video will help you, some schmuck lighting up a news chopper, caught on film. It doesn't take much, particularly at night. In the video, when the laser hits just right, the entire canopy lights up green. Even through the video camera, the light shows as very, very bright, bright enough to burn the eyelid and cornea leading to blindness (which is not cool when you need to be piloting an aircraft).
It should be common knowledge by now that this is stupid stupid shit. It's only sheer luck that this idiocy hasn't incapacitated a pilot to the point that the aircraft went down.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
>> are people doing this out of a really bad intention or are just not intelligent enough to understand the risks and the sentences they are facing
Both. These are the same people who like tossing bricks onto cars from the overpass.
When I was a kid outside at night, we used to shine flashlights at aircraft just to see if:
- We could see them better (we couldn't)
- They would notice us down on the ground (they didn't)
I'm pretty sure that most kids using the laser pointers are thinking along the same lines. They certainly aren't expecting to hit anybody in the eye and blind them, and in all reality that doesn't happen anyhow. What happens is the laser might hit the windscreen and refract, causing the cockpit to light up, which I'm sure looks pretty fucking cool to a couple bored kids with nothing better to do.
But never, at any point in my life, did the thought of tossing bricks off an overpass onto a car cross my mind. We weren't malicious, and I doubt the vast majority of people doing this are either. But the more the media and government make this type of thing sound like a Huge Deal, the more likely it is that the "bad sort of kids" WILL go out and intentionally try to wreck a plane with a $20 piece of hardware.
As for who the real "loser" is, it's not the kids with a penchant for destroying shit. It's the guy who sits on an online forum calling people 'losers' who will most likely never, ever actually read such comments. But go ahead and have fun with your Superiority Circle-Jerk, I'm sure plenty of others will be happy to join in.
One thing I never see published is the details about the flights. Certainly if the pilot is near an airport, especially during landing and takeoff, then obviously the perps are engaging in malicious behavior.
However, my math says that the major airports reported in the article received 778 of the 5,352 reported incidents in 2015. I live in a residential area that is quite some distance from any airport. A substantial number of aircraft violate the 1000 foot above ground level FAA minimum for residential neighborhoods. I have tried, many times, to call someone, somewhere, who might give a shit about this very annoying violation and there isn't anyone who will do anything (including just returning a phone call), short of my hiring a PI and a lawyer.
Most disturbing is the helicopters flying what I estimate to be within 200 feet of my house. Although it is a very sturdily built house, the whole thing shakes when the helicopters pass by. Also incredibly annoying is the dip-shit in his WWII fighter plane practicing his tricks, and sometimes just diving and climbing endlessly.
If I were a lesser person, since I cannot appeal to any authority that will take any action, whatsoever, I might choose to take a more violent approach than just thinking of them as total assholes.
Only slightly less assholes are the clueless journos who report the stories. Usually it comes from the establishment wannabes at Ars Technica, where critical thinking flies out the window, though this time it's USA Today, and the story is always the same: Report the huge number of incidents, then mention the slim minority that occur right next to an airport. It sure would be nice to see someone actually analyze this data to give people a better understanding of what might be driving this behavior, as I wouldn't be surprised if just asking pilots to follow the law might result in some unsubstantial quantity of these incidents going away. Of course the real problem with this is that it reveal that pilots are also aggressors, so it isn't in that industry's interests to pursue such ends.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.