FBI Investigating Laser Beams Pointed at Aircraft 500
sakshale writes "In an earlier discussion about Laser Pistols, many people argued about the concept of using them to target pilots of airliners. Apparently the FBI is investigating incidents in Cleveland and Colorado Springs. They issued a warning on December 14th."
Green with envy (Score:5, Informative)
Given some time, and--right or wrong--somebody will attempt to pile on the regulations and we can forget about buying green lasers from ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com] or anyplace else.
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Green with envy (Score:5, Funny)
WARNING: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WARNING: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly how does someone have $700 worth of fun with a laser in a responsible fashion? Its not like the thing is powerful enough to do really cool things like cut James bond in half or something.
Incidentally, if Goldfinger had really known what he was up to he would have had Bond upside down on the slab of gold. This was the general practice in the middle ages when sawing a man in half was a me
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Funny)
Use it to "key" cars in public, without being noticed (in day time).
Write your name in the snow.
Light a chicks cigarette from across the room.
Use it to heat your coffee.
Modify billboards.
Just don't hurt people with it. Unless they really, really need it. Could you toast a cell phone with it, I wonder?
Re:Green with envy (Score:5, Interesting)
And what do you want to bet they had a visit from their local FBI field office? Purchase records subpoenaed?
When green lasers are outlawed, only outlaws will& (Score:5, Funny)
Re:When green lasers are outlawed, only outlaws wi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Green with envy (Score:2)
Re:Green with envy (Score:5, Informative)
I have the impression you doint know what a 100 mW or a 300 mW laser is?
Standard laser pointers are made to divergent, the outlet of the beam has usually a small drop of plastic or glass to achieve that.
A 100mW laser easily blinds you. And if you have bad luck it does so permanently (usually only the parts imediatly hit, that is ~ a millimeters in diameter, but can be more).
A 300mW laser easily cut plastics, paper, wood etc. The lasers sold here http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/28/18532
You probably have a key missconception: lasers usually do NOT divergent (or only a very little), thats exactly what makes a laser different from normal light.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Informative)
What makes a laser different from normal light is that it is coherent and monochromatic.
Uncollimated laser light obeys the inverse-square law. Even collimated laser light obeys it, it's just that you need to treat the initial range to the source as greater than it actually is - the 'source' of the beam isn't the exit lens, but is represented as a point behind that lens. The more collim
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Insightful)
Near IR lasers tend to be absorbed by the front of the eye and not make it to the retina. (That doesn't mean they can't do harm to the eye, but not in the same way.) But this isn't so
Re:Green with envy (Score:5, Interesting)
While it's entirely likely "something" occured, the dilution of the story through the press has resulted in something that even a child would find fault in.
1. What constitutes a "laser" in the cockpit? A red dot? not likely at 1.5 miles altitude. Not to mention that the range would be a hypotenuse of the altitude and therefore MUCH farther.
2. The accuracy required to "track" the cockpit of a jet aircraft is astounding. This is the kind of test that prototype military weaponry fails routinly.
3. Assuming a laser was used, tracked accurately...what power output would be required for it to even be noticable? The thing would have to be semi-truck mounted.
Anyone think that maybe, it might be likely that this story has been utterly and completely misrepresented by the press? Or that maybe a drunk pilot noticed a reflection off a stray CD in the cockpit and freaked out? I see stray lights on my walls all the time, never once did I think terrorists were trying to blind me.
Re:Green with envy (Score:4, Interesting)
If there were much distance between the laser and the cockpit it wouldn't be much of a 'dot' and besides the tracking problem would be huge.
No; this laser must be from another aircraft, probably military.
The question is, what sort of lasers do the military use for painting targets? Green?
Or maybe its just bullshit to start with.
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Interesting)
Infrared.
I know, I got to "fire" one from a USAF F-4D back in the 70's...
Yep, I'm old...
A physicist's perspective (Score:5, Informative)
It is quite possible to damage a pilot's eyes at a range of a few miles, using only commercial laser systems [bigskylaser.com]. If done by competent individuals, it would probably involve a pulsed infrared laser (harder to detect, and the eye is more susceptible to near IR than to visible). A Nd:YAG laser (1064 nm) would be ideal.
Since a pulsed laser is used, there's no need for tracking the plane. A single 10-nanosecond pulse would be sufficient. At 10 - 20 pulses per second, you could just scan the sky in the area of the plane.
After reading the story, I did some rough calculations. For the above-mentioned laser, the laser beam would do damage (although likely not sufficient to totally blind the pilot) at ranges of up to two miles, and the beam would have a spot size several meters in diameter at that range. Obviously, with additional optics, range and spot size could be changed.
It seems to me that the laser could simply be mounted to a scope on a tripod (after some careful alignment), and that targetting by hand would work at least some of the time.
All this aside, I don't think the recent cases are anything to be worried about. More likely it's just a nutbar with a relatively weak visible laser (I assume the laser was in the visible range because the pilots reported it, and I doubt commercial planes are equipped to detect IR lasers). If it was someone serious, they'd be using IR lasers, and we wouldn't know until pilots started getting eye damage.
That said, the overall risk of plane crashes from this form of attack is low. If the airport and immediate area are kept secure (and they should be if only to guard against Stinger-style missile attacks), it's very unlikely someone with a commercial laser could get close enough to completely blind a pilot. Military or custom-built research lasers could blind from greater distances, but such systems are very finicky, and I can't see terrorists pulling that off.
Finally, I'd like to address a few points other people have brought up. If the polarization and angle of the beam are chosen correctly, virtually none will be reflected off the plane's window, and all will be transmitted (see Brewster's Angle [wolfram.com]). For modest laser powers, the damage to the retina will be localized to where the laser beam is imaged, leaving much of the pilot's vision intact. Bad for the pilot, but he could probably still land. For more intense beams, other damage mechanisms come into play (apparently for severe cases there is an actual popping sound perceived by the victim as the laser pulse creates a small shock wave inside the eye), and more of the victim's vision could be damaged.
Protective goggles aren't really an option, as they only protect against one wavelength. Attackers could then switch to a different type of laser (Ti:saph?). Combining goggles leads to virtually no light getting through.
References
Journal of Biomedical Optics 4(3), 337-344 (July 1999).
Big Sky Laser CFR-800 spec sheet [bigskylaser.com]
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way to pick up a laser pointed in an aircraft from the ground is if the aircraft has a missile warning system installed. Most of these have a component which picks up illumination by laser distance/speed measurement equipment.
Officially no US airline carries such thing (Israeli do, British Airways is considering it for some flights). Unofficially - the appearance of the article means that quite a few have it already or plan to do so and are
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Funny)
"even though the plane may be going at an very high speed, it will be virtually still since it's coming right at me."
Personaly I wouldn't want a 747 with a blind pilot comming right at me.
Mycroft
Re:Green with envy (Score:5, Funny)
Remember: lasers don't kill people, guided weapons that follow laser beams kill people.
Re:Green with envy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Friggin' ... (Score:2, Funny)
nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Funny)
-nB
Coast Guard checks out lasers aimed at boats... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Coast Guard checks out lasers aimed at boats... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Coast Guard checks out lasers aimed at boats... (Score:5, Interesting)
he Pentagon inspector general has asked the Navy to consider awarding JW client Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly (Ret.) a purple heart for injuries he suffered as a result of being shot with a laser by a Russian spy ship. Curiously, however, the Navy to this day maintains Jack's injuries never occurred. And evidence compiled by Judicial Watch suggests the Clinton Administration covered up the attack in order to avoid international conflict.
"Jack Daly certainly deserves a medal for his injury from a hostile force," said JW President Tom Fitton. "For more than six years, the U.S. government has refused to acknowledge an attack of a U.S. serviceman in American waters."
"Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly (Ret.) was partially blinded by a laser attack. The laser was fired at Daly from the Russian spy ship Kapitan Man in April, 1997, while Daly was on an official reconnaissance mission, flying over the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, WA. During his surveillance, which took place aboard a Canadian military helicopter, Daly felt a flash of brilliant light strike his eyes, causing him to turn away. Later in the day he would experience stinging in his eyes and sharp pains in his head. The next morning he awoke with a small pool of blood in one of his eyes.
Military doctors told Daly that he and his Canadian chopper pilot, Captain Pat Barnes (Ret.), had been shot at with a laser by the Russians. The damage would be permanent.
Rather than standing by their injured military official, however, Clinton Administration officials treated the incident as an inconvenient stumbling block on the path to improved relations with the Russian government and covered it up.
The Kapitan Man was not searched until several days later and only after at least 10 hours advanced warning given to the Russians. Though a thorough search should have taken 2-3 days, U.S. inspectors were aboard for less than 4 hours. Predictably, no evidence was found.
Judicial Watch currently has an appeal pending for Jack Daly against the Far East Shipping Company, the owners of the Kapitan Man."
Heed ye the warning (Score:2)
CmdrTaco always regretted his decision to stare into the beam with his remaining good eye.
Freakin laser beams (Score:3, Funny)
More info (Score:5, Funny)
Seems like Dr. Evil and his "laser beam" are finally starting to do their evil deeds!
Complementary article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Complementary article (Score:5, Insightful)
any laser that the general public can get their hands on will DO NO DAMAGE to a pilot or even distract them.
first off even the high power green ones, at the 100 meters or MORE distance these people are at, they need to retrofit the laser with a tripod, fluid head and a high power scope just to hit the plane.
Now let's addin the fac tt hat the angle if incidence of the beam to the cockpit window is at such an extreme angle that less than 20% of the beam will pass through the window, and THAT will get attenuated further by the cockpit glass.
let's further add that the pilot is looking at the centerline of the runway and not directly at things that might be interesting, and if it's a clear sunny day a reflection glint off cars in the parking lot is 200 times brighter than any consumer laser.
this is nothing but a bunch of people freaking out about isolated incidents.
if I was able to get my hands on a targeting laser, Yes, that MIGHT be able to hit the cockpit window because of the gyro stablization of the optics and laser, but then it's infrared so NOBODY would know it was hitting it!
can I get my hands on industrial lasers? yeah if I look hard enough, but you certianly will not run them off some portable battery for longer than a few seconds.
it is NOT a serious problem. Quit being a scared soccer mom.
Re:Complementary article (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that's a relief. When a blinded pilot crashes on top of me, it will be quite comforting to know that it was an isolated incident, so I needn't worry about it happening too often.
Re:Complementary article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Complementary article (Score:5, Interesting)
While your average laser pointer couldn't do much, it's not hard to get higher powered lasers for educational or commercial purposes.
I guess you never tried to shine sunlight into someones eyes with a mirror as a kid. It's not as hard as you think, even with a moving target. No, it wouldn't be a steady beam shining into the cockpit. But with a stong enough laser, the beam wouldn't need to be steady.Do you really think that a terrorist organization that is determined and resourced enough to pull off 9/11 couldn't get ahold of a few high powered lasers?
Questioning this... (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy pointing it must have steady hands, and damn good vision.
Re:Questioning this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Questioning this... (Score:3, Informative)
8,500 feet straight up is more than a few thousand feet at enough of an angle that you could be in line of site of the pilot.
I strongly doubt that this was a hand held laser. At about 10,000 feet - 2 miles - that would take a pretty steady hand and damn good eyes.....
Re:Questioning this... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot _ 2430Metres.asp [snipercountry.com]
2,430 metres. Ok, so it's only been done once at that distance but think...
The distance away these bad guys that had the laser were was probably 10x what the sniper was. But the sniper shot a man. The laser only had to hit the cockpit which probably has 10x the cross section of a man. No diff
Re:Questioning this... (Score:3, Informative)
now I dare you to hold that beam on a basketball that is 1500 feet away. you CAN NOT. it is impossible without special equipment. even a tripod and scope is inaccurate and will jiggle all over hell from ground vibrations. there is no way you can hit an airplane a "few miles away" with anything a consumer can touch.
the only thing useable is gyroscope stabalized laser aiming systems. and those are not common, cheap or easy to
Re:Questioning this... (Score:2)
Here you go [amazon.com]. There's plans in that book for a pulsed CO2 laser that'll cut steel. It's probably more than 1 watt and the capacitor bank isn't very light, but the quartz tube should be light enough to mount on your telescope mount if you've got one heavy enough to stabilize that telescope.
Re:Questioning this... (Score:5, Informative)
Ever look at a plane several miles away that is coming straight or almost straight in your direction? Sometimes it seems like they aren't moving at all. The number of arc seconds they will move in 10 seconds time relative to you is very small. I don't think a gyroscope/mechanical tracker would be necessary.
Re:Questioning this... (Score:3, Interesting)
A 747 flies at 565 mph or 909 km/h. This is 252 meters *per second*. And as you said, from the ground you barely see it move. You can't just point to it, since a second later your aim will be 252 meters off if you were right under it. Of course really it'd be slower for you due to the angle, but we can assume that the plane isn't at your altitude flying right at you, which is about the only thing that would make cheap aiming possible. The pilot will probably not even not
Re:Questioning this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which makes the obvious point:
Why the hell are you going to bother producing a one-of-a-kind "laser rifle" that *MIGHT* blind a pilot when you could j
Re:Questioning this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont want to build a super fancy one-of-a-kind laser rifle. I'm saying they could just take an industrial laser, mount one end on a bipod/tripod and mount a high power sniper scope on it. Not exactly the type of engineering you need NASA for. A good 'ol boy could do it in an afternoon if he could get his hands on a high power industrial laser.
S
Re:Questioning this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hawk said the laser had to have been fairly sophisticated to track a plane traveling at that altitude.
Am I the only one that has used a green laser for a legitimate purpose? Interestingly enough, that legitimate purpose (which seems to be one of two *only* legitimate purposes) seems to be the only way to carry out such a damaging illegitimate use which is what must have happened here... Someone strapped the laser to the side of a telescope! I do it so that I can use the green light to point at a spot in the sky and then not have to fiddle about finding that spot through the scope. It's just a matter of getting a plane in your sight and turning a knob to keep it locked in (funny that the DMCA can prevent me from telling you how to get around a copyright protection mechanism but I can't be touched for describing how to blind a pilot flying at 8,500 feet).
The other legitimate purpose I mentioned has to do with Pink Floyd and a fog machine... which once again can immediately lead to illegitimate activities.
tracking moving plane? (Score:5, Interesting)
it has been mentioned and it is obviously required that the laser track the cockpit. exactly how has the technology to track the COCKPIT of an airliner moving 200+mph. (pilots mention a constant laser light for 10+ seconds)
tracking the plane is one thing, and even that is tough to do if you are talking laser accuracy, but the cockpit? also, this has to be done several miles out, since the cockpit windows don't have much downward view anyway.
outside of military technology, are there any commercial systems that could even do this?
Re:tracking moving plane? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there are some (Score:5, Informative)
That would hurt.
Re:Yes there are some (Score:3, Interesting)
And so suddenly this is bigger than just buying, borrowing, or stealing one piece of gear. It turns into a serious project, and therefore shows much more deliberate, long-term malice on the part of the perpetrator.
Re:tracking moving plane? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:tracking moving plane? (Score:3, Interesting)
>You would need some sort of computer assisted device. 20+
>years of Star Wars research can't hit a target the size of a
>ballistic missle.
First of all, in 20 plus years of research, we HAVE demonstrated the ability to accurately target a missile. Enough to blow a few out of the sky. Second, we've done that from a 747 in flight at high altitude, not just a stable base placed on the ground. For crying out loud, we can repeatedly hit a precise spot on the MOON fro
Re:tracking moving plane? (Score:4, Interesting)
I own a Sony Handycam (DCR-TRV260) with a 40x optical zoom (and a useless "990x digital zoom" which really just enlarges existing pixels and adds no new detail). I also own a Bogen tripod with a fluid head. (Professional tripods are usually sold with legs and head separate. I have these legs: http://www.bogenimaging.us/product/templates/temp
I would never do anything like this in real life, but it would be possible for me to somehow strap a laser pointer onto my camcorder. I would then need to stand my tripod up securely and calibrate it, so the laser points at the exact middle of the image. I could do this by just pointing the whole thing at a wall, zooming in, and then fine-tuning the laser aim until it shows in the middle of my viewfinder. I could then do the same thing for a distant object, like the wall of a house several blocks away, and fine-tune the laser aim even more until the point was in the middle of the viewfinder.
Keep in mind the whole point of a fluid tripod head is to give the operator fine pressure-sensitive control of where the camera is pointing. There are no rubber pads pushed up against metal, seizing the metal and making fine movement impossible. Fluid heads use oil cartridges and tension knobs that let you tighten or loosen, but never completely lock, the horizontal or vertical movement. If you zoom a camera way in, tighten the tension knobs, and just lay one finger on the tripod pan handle, you can see the camera v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y tracking. To an outside observer you can't even tell the camera is moving, but the viewfinder shows the camera is not only moving, but it's moving smoothly at a constant rate.
While someone with my rig could just barely track a fast-moving aircraft from far away, they *could* do it.
--Michael Spencer
Re:tracking moving plane? (Score:2, Funny)
Accuracy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Countermeasures (Score:2)
Maybe some windows 98 operated computers will get mad and transform the runway in some Starwars style battlefield.
That would be a lot of fun !
Re:Countermeasures (Score:2)
Regulation (Score:5, Funny)
1. People think the lasers are weapons.
2. Other people start selling lasers as weapons.
3. Weapons are constitutionally protected for civilian ownership in all civilized nations.
4. Ergo - the Lasers can be purchased at your local sporting-goods store after a background check and some paperwork.
(Author's note, Point #3 is intended to be a bit of a joke. But I expect at least one reader will not read all the way to this disclaimer, instead flaming me good and hard.)
You forgot something.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Regulation (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm [usdoj.gov]
Re:Regulation (Score:2, Funny)
It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people.
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape.
Paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you (Score:4, Insightful)
What about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why green? (Score:2)
Re:Why green? (Score:5, Informative)
Lasers for display are regulated by the Center for Disease and Radiological Health. Your not supposed to direct a laser above 5mw up into the sky.
At a long distance, the beam definitly becomes incoherent. Gas lasers are considered better than solid state in regards to beam colimation, and without optics my 2.5' long argon tube beam ends up 1' or more wide at a distance of only 1000 feet or so.
Targeting, no... Someone might manage to cross the planes path, but in order to track a plane I'd iamgine you would need to build a box filled with dirt sitting on innertubes to isolate vibration, then come up with a servo mechanism. I don't think 16 bit DACs would give enough accuracy with glavos.
Weapons targeting systems do not use visible lasers AFAIK. It would be a giveaway if there was a bright green dot on the target and a green line tracing back to the source.
Also, laser light is different then searchlights because the light is polarized. So you can see the beam better from one way versus the other.
Re:Why green? (Score:3, Interesting)
FBI used to investigate UFO sightings as well (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm. I dunno. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it seems to be that it would be awful hard for something from the ground to actually hit the inside of the cockpit unless it had some sort of tracking device to track the plane, and was high enough to hit the inside of the cockpit instead of the nose cone (perhaps on a tall building or mountain near an airport).
I think this could be another tactic to strike fear into the populace.
Re:Hmm. I dunno. (Score:3, Informative)
But I've been on many a looping approach where the plane is banked substantially to one side or the other for a good minute or so, during which I'm looking down, at a steep angle, right into business districts, neighborhoods, etc. If my eyes can see the ground, the ground can see my eyes.
Re:Hmm. I dunno. (Score:2)
The ability of a human with a stealthy hand(s) held laser to actually track and hit a pilot well enough to do damage or create risk at most any airport in the world - is debatable. It *seems* highly unlikely, but then again - I am just a slashdot expert...
is this any real threat? (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said though, I still agree that giving a pilot a sudden vision obstacle while they are in the critical stages of landing their airplane is dangerous and should be unlawful.
Also I agree with an earlier post here that there is zero risk of a sustained illumination of a cockpit window from someone holding a handheld pointer two miles away aiming at a target moving at upwards of 800mph.
Real Homeland Security (Score:5, Insightful)
- Totally seal the borders
- Confiscate and auction off the properties of all employers of illegal aliens to pay the expenses of
- sending illegals home
- back taxes and
- social service costs of supporting illegals to date
- provide huge prize incentives for commercial development of alternatives to the fragile air transportation infrastructure
- provide huge prize incentives for commercial development of small-capitalization self-sufficiency systems so that small communities if not individual households could provide their basic necessities without reliance on centralized structures
- tear down the prison system as unfit for human habitation and construct a new one in which none of
- make sure that when national guardsmen come home from Iraq, trained in urban warfare and all pissed off at having been abused by the government, they at least have a job.
I know, I know... This is all way too sane for the scum who have occupied the positions of trust and authority within the de facto government of the US.- prisoner rape or other violence
- hepatitis C or
- AIDS
was a substantial risk andRe:Real Homeland Security (Score:2)
Re:Real Homeland Security (Score:4, Funny)
This is the part that I totally agree with; as a non-American I think that the USA *should* immediately seal all of its borders.
Anyone currently in the USA should not be allowed to leave, and noone should be permitted to enter.
Al internet connections, phone lines and satellite communications with the USA should be shut down.
A wall should be built, as high as humanly possible.
Best for everyone involved.
Re:Real Homeland Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Well seig heil to you too, buddy.
Yeah, it's all a joke until someone rubs your nose in who your jokes make you sound like. But Americans are the ignorant xenophobes, right?
Then again, I just spent a half hour reading a bunch of people complaining about the size of the first-day tsunami donations, when by the second day they'd increased by an order of magnitude, and when the US is giving more per person than any populous unaffected nation, peppered with assorted whining about how o
But what about the punks in the movie theatres? (Score:3, Funny)
These punks, with their cheesy dime-store pointers, are eroding our cinemaplex entertainment economy. As they taint our $40 movie dates, though, they're driving me closer and closer to actually buying a big screen at home. Which is good for China, or whoever makes it that week.
Re:But what about the punks in the movie theatres? (Score:2)
> This is serious, but not nearly as serious as what I'd like to do to the pointer-equipped, arrested development imbeciles that always seem to show up in the theater where I've just spent $9.50 to see a film. No doubt they think they're really onto something novel as they draw circles around Gollum's head, or perhaps improve Michael Moore's insufferable visage by doodling on it.
I suspect the anti-aircraft use will turn out to be precisely the same sort of idiots, who would never even have thought of
Couldn't they (Score:2)
This has been a growing problem recently (this isn't the first time it's happened), so I would hope that someone's already working on such a concept.
If not for the cockpit glass, then a pair of laser-protected goggles for the pilots?
Re:Couldn't they (Score:2)
Umm (Score:2)
Re:Umm (Score:2)
That's why autopilots are typically engaged on commercial aircraft throughout nearly the entire flight. When human pilots take control--usually during takeoff and landing, and occasionally in mid flight--it's largely because they need to stay in practice, not because the autopilot would be unable to fly safely. (In fact, in bad weather, the FAA may require that pilots allow the autopilot and FMS, which don't rely on visual cues, to land the plane.)
So at least according
No way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Have they explored onboard possibilities? Some emission coming from one of the onboard instruments?
Re:No way... (Score:2)
Re:No way... (Score:2)
Re:No way... (Score:2)
Where does it say that it was a hand-held laser? One of the articles says it'd have to be " fairly sophisticated to track a plane traveling at that altitude". That sure doesn't sound like a hand-held laser to me.
I would imagine that a good quality laser mounted on a high quality tripod along with a powerful sighting scope wouldn't be all that difficult to whip up. If tv camera people can track the space shuttle from
Re:No way... (Score:2)
Exactly.
It is being done. Who is doing it, and how are they doing it?
Happened to me (Score:4, Informative)
One note; there was mention in the news of a quote from an FBI agent who said it had to be a sophisticated laser to track a plane for severla seconds at 8500 feet. I disagree. I believe with a braced or tripod mounted unit in combination with the beam divergence holding on target for a few seconds is easy.
Yeah sure, is it an imaginary laser pen too? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah sure, is it an imaginary laser pen too? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah sure, is it an imaginary laser pen too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on people, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to figure out that a combination of a commercial/scientific laser [coherentinc.com] along with a good quality sighting scope [gunblast.com] mounted on a high quality tripod wouldn't be too difficult or expensive to slap together. Hell, just get a good laser and mount it on top of a good pair of military observation binoculars [opticsplanet.net] and you'd probably be ready to rock & roll.
It also doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to realize that from a mountain top or other high peak of land you could target aircraft flying directly towards your position from a few miles away. If it's flying in your direction then its horizontal and lateral positions won't change very much so you wouldn't need a sophisticated tracking system. You wouldn't even need a very high position if you intend on targeting aircraft that are landing - just an open area a mile or so from the end of the runway.
Laser Dazzler? (Score:3, Interesting)
And again last night! (Score:2)
IRTFA, My opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
The beams could make it into the cockpit upon approach I believe.
You have to be an idiot to do such a thing. The "pulsing" factor makes me think it might have been a pulsed YAG system, since many are triggered by flashlamps.
Crazy stuff, and it will make it difficult for those of us into lasers for entertainment.
For a good pic of a YAG on a clear night (this isn't mine):
A flashlamp triggered yag [757.org]
Argon on foggy night [757.org]
I have some pics from playing around here:
http://users.757.org/~ethan/pics/lasers/
Don't forget to check out www.linux-laser.org, an opensource linux laser platform. The funny thing is the only major software to use the device so far is for Windows XP.
Solution: Ban All Lasers from the private Citizen (Score:3, Insightful)
For get the multitude of legal uses, if there is ONE illegal use, we must take it off the market. And investigate anyone hat purchased the product before the ban..
Must protect society...
Anyone remember the pilot blinded by the Russians? (Score:3, Interesting)
WASHINGTON -- A San Diego-based Navy officer whose eyes were damaged by an apparent laser beam from a suspected Russian spy ship said yesterday he was injured by what was an act of war, terrorism or criminal conduct.
Non-threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Want to hit that cockpit with your LASER? Easy... (Score:3, Informative)
"Speed of motion" (as opposed to actual velocity) is apparent. When the aircraft is coming toward or away from you, it's speed of motion is less than if it was passing side to side. Just get in line with the sucker as it lines up on approach. Fire toward it.
Rifle fire has brought down military jets with this technique. It's as old as the first biplanes, and still works.
Chances are pretty good that you can do this with a proper rifle scope and a small hand LASER. As far as brightness goes, remember, the LASER (even at five milliwatts) is focused tightly. The beam is usually also parallel to a good extent. I can verify that at five miles on a bright day a five milliwatt LASER is the brightest thing on the horizon IF YOU GET LINED UP WITH IT.
Laser Dazzle Weapons (Score:4, Interesting)
According to this Royal School of Artillery paper [atra.mod.uk] 'The most likely choice of lasers for a dazzle weapon would be
Argon (458 - 515 nm, blue/green) or Ne YAG freq doubled(532 nm, green).'
According to the Federation of American Scientists [fas.org] In the 1970's it was claimed that Chinese soldiers were blinded by Soviet-built laser systems during the China-Vietnam war. During the Iran-Iraq War, over 4,000 Iranian soldiers sustained injuries due to Iraqi laser systems. Throughout the 1980's, the Soviet Union were long suspected of directing lasers at US spyplanes. Today anti-personnel laser weapons are inexpensive, sold openly by the Third World, have line-of-sight aiming, and are capable of producing catastrophic results if used against aircrews and sensors in flight.
In 1989 a US-USSR bilateral agreement imposed restrictions on the use of low-energy lasers. In 1989 the International Committee of the Red Cross called for multi-lateral controls.
On 13 October 1995 the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) [makeashorterlink.com] was proposed. In 1998 it became international law but Human Rights Watch [commondreams.org] is concerned that the US is developing Dazzle weapons that do not cause permanent blindness and would circumvent the blinding weapons agreement.
Now while the threat from laser weapons are real, I think the odds are greater that a real terrorist would use a man portable anti-aircraft missle.
hysteria (Score:3, Interesting)
However, even though there is no evidence of actual injury, people still report getting injured by laser pointers all the time. That suggests that there is a kind of fear and hysteria about these devices (maybe caused by too much SciFi) that now seems to be cross-breeding with the terrorism scares.