UK Pilots' Union Calls For Laser Pointers To Be Classed As Offensive Weapons (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The body that represents airline pilots in the UK has called for handheld laser pointers to be classed as offensive weapons, after a Virgin Atlantic flight to the U.S. was forced to return to Heathrow when its co-pilot was dazzled by a laser during takeoff. The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) said aircraft were being "attacked" by the devices "at an alarming rate and with lasers with ever-increasing strength." It said the problem was becoming "more and more urgent."

Comments

Let the autopilot handle TO & Landings

[justthinkit]

Let the autopilot handle Take-Offs & Landings

Re:Let the autopilot handle TO & Landings

[barc0001]

They don't HAVE to no, but you really don't want your pilots sitting there pressing a couple of buttons and only getting actual hands on feel with the controls during emergencies. You need the pilots to actually interact with the plane regularly to keep them useful for when those things the autopilot actually cannot cope with arise.

First they came for our guns,

[Anonymous Coward]

but I did not complain, because guns are scary!
Then they came for our knives, but I did not complain, because knives are scary!
Then they came for our laser pointers, but I did not complain, because they had the only guns and knives. Now they can take anything they want with impunity.

Instead...

[nametaken]

I have to imagine there are a bunch of existing laws that make this a serious offense. Just find the people that do this and come down hard on them. Then you can leave everyone else alone.

This is why we can't have nice things

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet again, idiots armed with 'weapondry' they have no business having ruin it for the rest of the laser enthusiasts.

So, no more laser sighting. No more hobbyist access to lasers of any significant power. All because some idiots don't understand how dangerous these devices can be when aimed at the cockpit of an oncoming plane.

Fucking pisses me off that people can be so damned irresponsible.

Let's not let the legitimate uses be ignored

[DarkFencer]

These laser pointers are being used by a relatively small number of idiots/criminals, but being used by many for legitimate uses. They're fantastic for astronomy - many amateur astronomers use them to point out stars, constellations, nebulae, etc.

They're a great tool for astronomy education and outreach and that use is far more common than the criminal ones.

Re:Could they filter most common wavelengths?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem of night-blindness. I've talked to pilots of police helicopters that have had green laser pointers shot into their cockpits, ruining their night vision while flying low-level in search of a suspect in areas filled with high-tension power wires (which are so good at taking out helicopters that most have large wire cutters above and below the windshield to give a chance at survival). That's straight-up attempted murder.

Re:banned here already

[operagost]

Did they ban your pointy knives yet? You're not safe until there are no pointy knives. Or blunt objects. Better ban those bats, pipes, and bits of lumber.

Re:During Takeoff?

[MarkRose]

Below 10,000 ft, airplanes are travelling at less than 250 mph. At takeoff, it's closer to 175 mph for a jet like a 737. At less than a perpendicular angle, the rate of travel across a field of view is less than that. If a person holds their arm out they can point with a lot of precision -- it's a lot easier than tracking an object at the same distance with binoculars. Furthermore, you must consider being at a distance away from the airplane. The greater the distance, the slower the plane is moving and the easier it is to aim at. Pointing straight up is rarely the issue, but if you're a mile away and the plane is on approach at say 2000 ft, that's only a 20 degree angle. Sitting in the cockpit of a 737, a pilot can see the edge of a taxiway -- the vertical field of view out the window is quite good. The lasers involved in these incidents are often much more powerful than a pen laser pointer and are many are strong enough to cause permanent eye damage. Unlike an incandescent bulb, lasers lose very little energy on the way to their targets. It's like those idiots on the highway who blind you with high beams at night, only much worse -- and I've had my night vision temporarily ruined by headlights a couple miles away. Lastly, there are lots of metal bits in a cockpit to reflect the laser, and the windshields are often marked by micro-abrasions from dust and insects, which can cause the whole windshield to glow.

Here is what it looks like from the cockpit. Are pilots bullshitting? Try driving a car down an unlit rural road at night with that in your eyes and report back to us.

A 1 watt laser is enough to flash the ISS. It doesn't take much.

Re:that still doesn't help you catch the buggers

[Obfuscant]

I still maintain that if a $5 cat toy

If you think that the lasers being used to do this are $5 cat toys, you are ignorant. It is disingenuous at best to pretend that the problem is $5 cat toys.

then the aircraft itself is deeply flawed

Yeah, because having a large machine operated by a human being who needs eyesight to do it safely is such a flawed concept.

Of course, despite all the whinging, there's never been a documented case of that it actually happening.

You are posting in a discussion about a documented case of it happening.

Re:Barn door

[flopsquad]

The problem is that the possibility of being caught is near zero so any small thrill is enough of an incentive. The challenge of hitting an aircraft with a laser is enough of a thrill for some people and yes they are assholes. No matter how big the fine there will still be people who believe they will never get caught.

Another issue is that you are assuming people use valid risk assessment before doing things. For many people that is a false assumption as in "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this."

Bingo. Deterrent effect is maximized by swiftness and certainty of punishment. Severity of punishment, as an independent variable, is not an effective knob to turn up deterrence**.

That is not only Just How Humans Work(TM), but is also borne out by plenty of studies (both short term "psych" studies, and long term sociological studies of criminal behavior). Regardless of how achievable this is in practice, the theory is pretty cut and dry: you'd be far better served by a program that upped the catch rate from 5% to 75% and gave everyone a £200 fine due in a week, than leaving the catch rate at 5% and raising the fine to £20,000.

**FWIW, a sufficiently severe punishment can, in the aggregate, act as a deterrent. The problem is, due to proportionality and cruelty concerns, the level of punishment may be higher than we're willing to stomach in a Western democracy.