I'm going to "Laser" a pilot.

George Patterson wrote:

Happy Dog wrote:

As for UV or IR lasers, how would you aim them?

Possibly by "piggybacking" them to one of your "toy" lasers such that both
hit the same spot.

And there you go. We have gone from a claim that laser pointers can cause
retinal damage of pilots in aircraft several thousand feet distant, and
bring down airliners in the process, to a claim that laser pointers can be
used as sighting devices for a CO2 or other high power laser with an
invisible beam. Why would you give yourself away with a visible beam when
you can use a high powered optical sight? You don't have windage or gravity
to deal with. Should we mitigate the risk posed by high power invisible
laser beams? How should we mitigate the risk?

Happy Dog wrote:

As for UV or IR lasers, how would you aim them?

Possibly by "piggybacking" them to one of your "toy" lasers such that both hit
the same spot.

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

In article ,
"Happy Dog" wrote:

"AES" wrote in message

All of these effects can be produced at light intensities way, way below
the level that produces any permanent damage to the retina. Though I'm
no expert on this subject, I have also been told that sustained exposure
to this kind of illumination in a situation where you can't just "turn
it off" and where the light levels, although below permanent damage, are
well above what leads to you to blink, and especially if they occur in
stressful situations with demanding performance requirements, can
rapidly lead to various kinds of psychological distress.

Did an "expert" tell you this?

My final (and excessively lengthy) sentence above is a summary of what I
recall hearing as a participant in a meeting where a group of civilian
laser experts and U.S. Air Force personnel discussed the military uses
of laser dazzling techniques against pilots in hostile situations
(including mention of some real-world examples where this technique had
been employed).

This was some time back, and the discussion of the "psychological
distress" aspects was, as I best recall, brief with no detailed examples
being presented, which is why I started this particular sentence with a
disclaimer.

If you in turn have evidence to contradict this, or to demonstrate that
I've made errors in this particular sentence, I'd be glad to hear it,
and I suspect others on this NG might be interested also.

"AES" wrote in message news:siegman-B29138.
"Happy Dog" wrote:

"AES" wrote in message

All of these effects can be produced at light intensities way, way
below
the level that produces any permanent damage to the retina. Though I'm
no expert on this subject, I have also been told that sustained
exposure
to this kind of illumination in a situation where you can't just "turn
it off" and where the light levels, although below permanent damage,
are
well above what leads to you to blink, and especially if they occur in
stressful situations with demanding performance requirements, can
rapidly lead to various kinds of psychological distress.

If you in turn have evidence to contradict this, or to demonstrate that
I've made errors in this particular sentence, I'd be glad to hear it,
and I suspect others on this NG might be interested also.

Not to contradict it, since the term "psychological distress" is impossibly
vague. It was that phrase that made me wonder what kind of "expert"
muttered it.

moo

Legrande Harris wrote:

Wouldn't wearing polarized sunglasses just about completely eliminate
the problem of lasers aimed at pilots eyes? The polarization should
completely stop the laser light from coming through the glasses.

Using an LED laser pointer and a pair of polarized glasses I tested your
idea. There is attenuation of the beam that is dependent on the orientation
of the pointer. So, the attenuation depends on how the person on the other
end is holding the pointer.

Legrande Harris wrote:

Wouldn't wearing polarized sunglasses just about completely eliminate
the problem of lasers aimed at pilots eyes? The polarization should
completely stop the laser light from coming through the glasses.

Using an LED laser pointer and a pair of polarized glasses I tested your
idea. There is attenuation of the beam that is dependent on the orientation
of the pointer. So, the attenuation depends on how the person on the other
end is holding the pointer.

Wouldn't wearing polarized sunglasses just about completely eliminate
the problem of lasers aimed at pilots eyes? The polarization should
completely stop the laser light from coming through the glasses.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:12:40 +0000, 10Squared
wrote in ::

Legrande Harris wrote:

Wouldn't wearing polarized sunglasses just about completely eliminate
the problem of lasers aimed at pilots eyes? The polarization should
completely stop the laser light from coming through the glasses.

Using an LED laser pointer and a pair of polarized glasses I tested your
idea. There is attenuation of the beam that is dependent on the orientation
of the pointer. So, the attenuation depends on how the person on the other
end is holding the pointer.

If the aircraft windscreen were silvered so that it would be
reflective perhaps it would help reduce the laser's effect.

But these methods are going to reduce the pilot's visual acuity at
night.

10Squared wrote:

Why would you give yourself away with a visible beam when
you can use a high powered optical sight?

Ever tried to use one at night?

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

"George Patterson" \ 10Squared wrote:

Why would you give yourself away with a visible beam when
you can use a high powered optical sight?

Ever tried to use one at night?

Yeah. The whole thing is absurd. If a pilot was blinded by UV laser, you
can bet that commercial passenger jets would be equipped with UV detectors
(mundane technology) and pilots would be wearing protective goggles on
approach (again, commonly available). The whole idea is silly, from a
terrorism POV.

moo