Military Green Laser Pointer

"Cockpit Colin" wrote:

For what it's worth, I own one of the green variety - it's great for
pointing out starts etc at night.

My feeling is that if someone shined in the cockpit from (at least) 1 or 2
miles away, ...

(a) It would give me a bit of a fright - be damned annoying, but not
damaging - possibly causing a precautionary go-around at worst.

(b) Being that the beam is visable, it should be possible to give a
pretty accurate description of where it came from.

(c) Unless you mounted it mechanically, it would be pretty hard to keep
it shining in a cockpit.

Given the current talk on the topic I'm tempted to setup a controlled test
(with an additional safety pilot) where I'll get someone to shine it at me
(perhaps from the tower) during an approach in a GA aircraft.

Regardless of what that web page said, or of your feelings
outlined above, I still put shining a laser, or for that matter
any other light source, at an aircraft - cockpit or not - in the
same category as shooting a rifle at an aircraft.

Sure, the probability of either bringing down the aircraft [or
even hitting it for that matter] is low. But mishap after mishap
report has identified the mishap as a chain of low probability
events and omissions that combined to render the mishap
inevitable. There is no way of some yahoo having fun pointing
his laser or rifle at an aircraft knowing whether or not the
aircraft is in the midst of such a chain, and that the momentary
distraction of a laser flash in a pilot's eye, or a round ripping
through a cockpit window might be the final event in the chain
that terminates the flight in a smoking pile of wreckage.

For verisimilitude, why don't you try that flight as an engine
out landing, with an electrical failure on a NORDO approach.
That might give us a better idea of whether or not a laser flash
can be distracting.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

Take a look at www.wickedlasers.com - current "top of the range" is 95
Milliwatt for $499.00 USD - I don't think I'd like to be on the receiving
end of one of those at 2 or 3 miles, even for a test.


"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
.. .
dano wrote:
In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote:


"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Hysteria aside for just a moment, have a read of ...

http://www.equipped.org/lasers_airliners.htm


Interesting and reasonable...thanks...


Right up until the line where the author states:

"More recently, the media has taken note of somewhat more powerful
lasers, up in the area of 20 Mw, that can be obtained for less than
$1000, which has again ignited fears."

Um, a 20 megawatt laser is going to ignite more than just fear. It's
also going to ignite steel armor and maybe even titanium.

And it's going to need at least an industrial strength nuclear reactor
to run (assume approx. 1% efficiency, so that a 20 Mw laser will need at
least 2,000 Mw electrical power source. That's 2 gigawatts.

So would a 12.1Mw laser require 1.21 gigawatts?

Maybe they misprinted 20mW as 20Mw, since there is an earlier
reference to 5mW. The article is pretty sloppy in it's use of units.
The abbreviation is W not w, I don't think w stands for anything.
Capital M is short for mega (million) and lowercase m is milli (one
thousandth). Quite a few orders of magnitude!

I hear what you're saying - in the end, it becomes a matter of chance. I've
no doubt that under any circumstances a laser in the cockpit is something we
really don't need - if it happens to be during the likes of a SE approach
(especially in the event of it triggering a single-engine go-around) then
yes, it could most definately be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I just hope it never happens to me, although I have to say I'd prefer it to
someone taking pot-shots with a rifle.





Regardless of what that web page said, or of your feelings
outlined above, I still put shining a laser, or for that matter
any other light source, at an aircraft - cockpit or not - in the
same category as shooting a rifle at an aircraft.

Sure, the probability of either bringing down the aircraft [or
even hitting it for that matter] is low. But mishap after mishap
report has identified the mishap as a chain of low probability
events and omissions that combined to render the mishap
inevitable. There is no way of some yahoo having fun pointing
his laser or rifle at an aircraft knowing whether or not the
aircraft is in the midst of such a chain, and that the momentary
distraction of a laser flash in a pilot's eye, or a round ripping
through a cockpit window might be the final event in the chain
that terminates the flight in a smoking pile of wreckage.

For verisimilitude, why don't you try that flight as an engine
out landing, with an electrical failure on a NORDO approach.
That might give us a better idea of whether or not a laser flash
can be distracting.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

"Cockpit Colin" wrote:

I hear what you're saying - in the end, it becomes a matter of chance. I've
no doubt that under any circumstances a laser in the cockpit is something we
really don't need - if it happens to be during the likes of a SE approach
(especially in the event of it triggering a single-engine go-around) then
yes, it could most definately be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I just hope it never happens to me, although I have to say I'd prefer it to
someone taking pot-shots with a rifle.

Serendipity strikes with a vengeance. This article just appeared
in this morning's Washington Post, "Lasers To Signal Airspace
Breaches - Sky in Region to Be Constantly Scanned"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr15.html

"The U.S. military will begin using an elaborate network of
cameras and lasers next month to scan the sky over Washington and
flash colored warning beams at aircraft that enter the nation's
most restricted metropolitan airspace."

It goes on to explain how a system of camera/laser units will
cover most of the restricted area covering a roughly 50 mi radius
centered on Washington, extending to North of Baltimore, South of
Quantico, and including all three major airports, National,
Dulles, and BWI, in the region. [Derived from a chart
accompanying the print article, but not available online. The
article itself says the camera/lasers will cover a roughly 30 mi
radius. Given my skepticism of average media reporter/editor
understanding in military/tech things, I'll buy into the 30 miles
after seeing feedback from pilots. ;-]

The article does address the ideas raised in this thread; saying:

"Unlike pointers and other eye-damaging lasers that have raised
safety concerns among pilots, the military's beams are
low-intensity and safe enough for the eyes yet distinctive enough
to alert pilots that something's wrong, officials say. From
government building rooftops, the lasers will pinpoint an
aircraft from 20 miles away and flash a quick red-red-green
sequence repeatedly. The cameras will be overseen by NORAD
officials from multiple locations, including Colorado Springs;
Cheyenne, Wyo.; and the Washington area. NORAD operators will
activate the laser beams if a pilot does not respond to radio
contact or an aircraft intercept.

"Researchers who developed the technology say the laser beam is
so narrowly targeted that other nearby aircraft will not be able
to see it. Curtis Davis, a researcher at MIT Lincoln Laboratory
who helped develop the system, said the beam is stronger than a
laser pointer, but more diffuse. "We've taken the size of the
beam and made it 15,000 times bigger," Davis said. "It's a foot
in diameter."

Hmm. 12"/15,000 = 0.0008"? That's an awfully tight beam from a
laser pointer. Wonder if/how much a laser pointer diffuses going
up to flight altitudes? [I know, I know, coherent beams, but I'm
old enough to have been so canalized by Boy Scout flashlights
that by the time lasers rolled around ...]
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
Hmm. 12"/15,000 = 0.0008"? That's an awfully tight beam from a
laser pointer. Wonder if/how much a laser pointer diffuses going
up to flight altitudes? [I know, I know, coherent beams, but I'm
old enough to have been so canalized by Boy Scout flashlights
that by the time lasers rolled around ...]

I bet the 15,000 figure is in terms of relative area, not diameter.
Figuring that, I get about .1" diameter for the laser pointer, which
makes more sense.

I'm sure somebody's already made the first Dr. Evil joke on this one,
what's next, sharks with laser beams?

In all seriousness, the plan has some merit.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

I've read a couple of NG posts from pilots who have been intercepted by
F16s - needless to say that they got the pilots attention! (not to mention
total, complete, 100% co-operation!)



"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:

I hear what you're saying - in the end, it becomes a matter of chance.
I've
no doubt that under any circumstances a laser in the cockpit is something
we
really don't need - if it happens to be during the likes of a SE approach
(especially in the event of it triggering a single-engine go-around) then
yes, it could most definately be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I just hope it never happens to me, although I have to say I'd prefer it
to
someone taking pot-shots with a rifle.

Serendipity strikes with a vengeance. This article just appeared
in this morning's Washington Post, "Lasers To Signal Airspace
Breaches - Sky in Region to Be Constantly Scanned"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr15.html

"The U.S. military will begin using an elaborate network of
cameras and lasers next month to scan the sky over Washington and
flash colored warning beams at aircraft that enter the nation's
most restricted metropolitan airspace."

It goes on to explain how a system of camera/laser units will
cover most of the restricted area covering a roughly 50 mi radius
centered on Washington, extending to North of Baltimore, South of
Quantico, and including all three major airports, National,
Dulles, and BWI, in the region. [Derived from a chart
accompanying the print article, but not available online. The
article itself says the camera/lasers will cover a roughly 30 mi
radius. Given my skepticism of average media reporter/editor
understanding in military/tech things, I'll buy into the 30 miles
after seeing feedback from pilots. ;-]

The article does address the ideas raised in this thread; saying:

"Unlike pointers and other eye-damaging lasers that have raised
safety concerns among pilots, the military's beams are
low-intensity and safe enough for the eyes yet distinctive enough
to alert pilots that something's wrong, officials say. From
government building rooftops, the lasers will pinpoint an
aircraft from 20 miles away and flash a quick red-red-green
sequence repeatedly. The cameras will be overseen by NORAD
officials from multiple locations, including Colorado Springs;
Cheyenne, Wyo.; and the Washington area. NORAD operators will
activate the laser beams if a pilot does not respond to radio
contact or an aircraft intercept.

"Researchers who developed the technology say the laser beam is
so narrowly targeted that other nearby aircraft will not be able
to see it. Curtis Davis, a researcher at MIT Lincoln Laboratory
who helped develop the system, said the beam is stronger than a
laser pointer, but more diffuse. "We've taken the size of the
beam and made it 15,000 times bigger," Davis said. "It's a foot
in diameter."

Hmm. 12"/15,000 = 0.0008"? That's an awfully tight beam from a
laser pointer. Wonder if/how much a laser pointer diffuses going
up to flight altitudes? [I know, I know, coherent beams, but I'm
old enough to have been so canalized by Boy Scout flashlights
that by the time lasers rolled around ...]
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

Gee, finally they are obeying the interceptors? back in the 50s some of
them would try to evade. In the 60s the drug smugglers would try it,
too. But then we started tailing them, lights out, and keeping the
controller informed as to where they were going. The evasion in the 50s
gradually stopped when the intercepted aircraft found they just made
things worse for themselves. Although one 86 pilot got so ****ed he
'faced' a Bonanza who instantly learned all he wanted to know about
jetwash and from then on was a nice boy.
Never heard if the 86 pilot got in serious trouble for that maneuever.
Walt BJ

I'll bet there are some interesting accounts to be told by many. I guess the
big difference between tailing a drug runner and tailing someone who's
busted a TFR is that (post 911) the TFR buster is no doubt going to make a
lot of people really nervous if he's over a populated area - and I'd think a
lot more likely to get a few cannon rounds through his aircraft if he didn't
obey.

I've heard rumours that the likes of F16s have a few problems keeping up
with GA aircraft because GA cruise speeds are below the Mil Jet's stall
speed - any experiences anyone?

PS: Pardon my ignorance, but what's an "86"?


wrote in message
ups.com...
Gee, finally they are obeying the interceptors? back in the 50s some of
them would try to evade. In the 60s the drug smugglers would try it,
too. But then we started tailing them, lights out, and keeping the
controller informed as to where they were going. The evasion in the 50s
gradually stopped when the intercepted aircraft found they just made
things worse for themselves. Although one 86 pilot got so ****ed he
'faced' a Bonanza who instantly learned all he wanted to know about
jetwash and from then on was a nice boy.
Never heard if the 86 pilot got in serious trouble for that maneuever.
Walt BJ

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:33:25 +1200, Cockpit Colin wrote:

PS: Pardon my ignorance, but what's an "86"?

F-86 Sabre. Walt flew 'em.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

An 86 I'd bet it's an F-86 Sabre. First flown in 1947, several world records
beaten. Fought in Corea against the MiG-15.


"Cockpit Colin" escribió en el mensaje
...

PS: Pardon my ignorance, but what's an "86"?