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."
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?
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.
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...
IIRC, a Cat. 3 ILS will bring the aircraft down to 150 ft. After that, the touchdown itself is still up to the pilot. Additionally, there is a good deal of preliminary work for the pilot to set up an instrument approach. But the equipment is expensive and not all runways are properly equipped. Also, equipment, both on the ground and the aircraft, can break; usually at the worst time. So the pilot still needs to be able to do a manual landing in any case. And that takes practice to stay proficient.
Imagine all the people...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.