Slashdot Mirror
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."
how about instead, equip planes with a return-fire laser? one that, say, would melt granite at 3 miles? you'll stop repeat offenders dead in their tracks, so to speak. much cheaper and more effective.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Let the autopilot handle Take-Offs & Landings
I come here for the love
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.
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.
They banned them here in Australia over a decade ago after a number of incidents of people using them against planes. One such incident was my brother, still remember that night as federal police turned up to our property to find the offender that caused a plane to do an emergency aborted landing, while they let him off with a warning my parents certainly didn't.
Could they apply some kind of filtration film to the inside of cockpit windscreens to block or at least mute the fairly narrow spectrum green lasers use?
I'm only a laser expert to the extent I read the wikipedia laser pointer page, so maybe this doesn't work. I guess I wouldn't expect it to be completely effective, but maybe enough to limit the risk to pilot vision?
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.
So you're saying someone was level with the plane on the runway right? Cause either planes have windows in the floor or they take off upside down now. I just done see how a plane at a 45 degree angle or higher at takeoff gets a laser shot through the pilots window.
Guess maybe you have only been to one airport in your life and it didn't have buildings that elevate people to the same level as the windows of the pilots or even higher. Not to mention there are cities that have skyscrapers and high buildings not very far from airports. And heaven forbid that maybe some cities have hills by airports. But since you haven't seen that, I guess it doesn't exist.
Be seeing you...
Without accurate information on the exact position and angle of the plane, it's all speculation. All I see is that the incident happened "after takeoff" which doesn't really say much. For instance, the plane could be making a sharp turn some time "after takeoff", exposing a side window to a ground level shooter.
The plane reported the "incident" 5 or 6 miles after takeoff. So it was already pretty high at that point given the rate of climb. But yes, I agree: although we hear many tales of "laser attacks" on planes, nobody has yet explained to my satisfaction how a hand-held laser can be pointed upwards into a cockpit window of a plane traveling at several hundred MPH and to track it for long enough to dazzle anyone - let alone just one of the two pilots.
I could understand complaints of car drivers being dazzled, since they are much slower, the lasers can be on bridges over the road and would be much closer to the vehicles. But we almost never hear of these incidents (are they so common they don't count as news, or cause accidents - which would be newsworthy) and it only seems to be pilots who are sensitive to this issue.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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.
My thinking too. They said it was 13 miles in to it's flight which would rule out anyone in a tall building doing it unless people think jets ascend on a 5 degrees angle. And to be able to hit a window at a distance and hit it long enough to cause vision issues for the pilots? I would think if someone had a laser targeting system that accurate the authorities would have no problem finding them since it would most likely be in a lab for research and most likely an academic institution.
The hit doesn't have to be very long to be dazzling, especially if the pilots are flying in the dark and their eyes have become sensitive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The pilot of an A340 has a view that extends about 20 degrees below the horizon on the tarmac. I haven't been able to find out how steeply they climb, but 747s usually only do about 20 degrees. Please confirm whether or not you pulled that number out of your bum.
I can also exclusively reveal that cockpits have windows that let you look out to the sides, a view which is unaffected by takeoff angle.
Furthermore, planes sometimes execute banking turns shortly after takeoff.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
If you point a laser at a plane or helicopter in the US, the feds will come down on you with both feet. This guy got fourteen years for it, though the sentence was reduced to five years on appeal.
I always wondered why stars twinkled, turns out it's astronomy instructors briefly illuminating them with lasers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Be relentless!
The chance of a crime being committed depends on three factors: Punishment if caught vs. chance of being caught times gain of the crime.
And that's the problem: Where the fuck is the gain? Why risk an insane fine if there is no gain? Yes, there are assholes who would do it for no good reason other than "I can do it and be an asshole". Just give it a fine that borders on insane and you can easily divert offenders to blinding passing cars instead.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why don't we start a war on stupidity and make a law where you can legally slap the shit out of idiots that would shine a laser pointer at an airplane...
You see someone stupid enough to do that, just walk up to them and start slapping. It's your Civic duty.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Nothing posted to
A dichroic reflector has the opposite behaviour to the narrow band-pass dichroic filter therefore a stack of dichroic reflectors can block the limited number of spectral bands covered by the majority of commercially available solid-state lasers. If these layers are also electro reflective they are only active when switched on (or off) therefore their use can be limited to altitudes and locations of maximum risk.
This solution is 100% effective for common laser pointers whereas a ban will be as useless as a ban on pointy objects to stop stabbings. Sociopaths and fools will always find a way to get hold of such technology, particularly when the active part is so small and easily concealed.
Using lasers to blind individuals is a violation of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons signed by 105 countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. So I suppose from a legal philosophy perspective, calling the use of lasers to interfere with a person's vision an offensive weapon isn't that big of a stretch.
First sensible post in this topic. At even a mile away hand shake is going to be dancing the beam around a huge area, and it is going to be pretty spread out unless it is something with a large lens and not a handheld laser. (Look up "diffraction limited" if that means nothing to you.) I have a hard time reconciling pilots reports of having their sight "dazzled" or even damaged, with how little power, and for how little time, the beam could have been entering their eye.
Then they came for our laser pointers, but I did not complain, because they had the only guns and knives.
This means we still have our laser guided, air to surface missiles. If so perhaps there is a simple solution to this problem...