Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday February 18 2016, @03:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the promoting-laser-beams-on-sharks dept.

A Virgin Atlantic flight from London's Heathrow Airport destined for New York was forced to return following a "laser beam incident":

A flight heading to New York turned back to London Heathrow Airport after a "laser beam incident", Virgin Atlantic has confirmed. A crew member is recorded saying to Irish air traffic control that they had a "medical issue with one of the pilots after a laser incident after take-off". It happened at 20:13 GMT, shortly after take-off, the company said, before flight VS025 returned as a precaution. There were 252 passengers and 15 crew on board. Metropolitan Police tweeted: "Aircraft forced to return to Heathrow after being hit by a laser strike... #laserstrike CAD4."

[...] A new law introduced in 2010 means people could be charged with "shining a light at an aircraft in flight so as to dazzle the pilot".

Janet Alexander, a commercial airline pilot, said shining a laser beam into a cockpit was a very dangerous thing to do. "It's unfortunately becoming an increasingly problematic occurrence. It's very like a lightning strike in that it's very instantaneous, very, very bright light, which is dazzling basically," she said. "And of course if it's targeted in exactly the wrong way you could permanently damage someone's sight."

A total of 414 "laser incidents" in the UK were reported to the Civil Aviation Authority between January and June 2015. The highest number of them was at London Heathrow Airport - 48 were reported during this period. In 2014, there were 1,440 incidents in the UK, with 168 at Heathrow, according to the CAA.

The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) has called for lasers to be classified as "offensive weapons" and banned in the UK, following the Virgin Atlantic flight VS025 laser incident. Members cite the frequency of laser incidents and say the 2010 legislation on lasers isn't tough enough.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

Related Stories

Pope Francis's Plane Reports Laser Incident 52 comments

In yet another laser beam incident, crew on a flight carrying Pope Francis reported a laser beam sighting to air traffic control in Mexico City:

Alitalia flight AZ4000 was travelling from Havana with the Pope on board, and was preparing to land when the laser was spotted.
No crew or passengers were injured by the beam, the airline added.

[...] "This is yet another incident that shows how serious and widespread the issue of laser attacks on aircraft is," said Jim McAuslan, General Secretary of the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), in response to the case involving the Pope's plane. "Modern lasers have the power to blind and the potential to dazzle and distract pilots during critical phases of flight," he told the BBC. "Shining a laser at an aircraft is illegal and dangerous and puts all those on board and on the ground nearby at completely unnecessary risk."

Aboard the plane headed from Rome to Mexico, the Pope said that contraception may be the "lesser evil" for women at risk of catching the Zika virus. In comments made on the ground, he chastised Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump for his plan to build a wall on the Mexican border.


In another story from the UK laser crime beat, Englishman Philip Houghton has been sentenced to 20 weeks in prison for admitting to shining a laser pen at a Humberside Police helicopter that was investigating a shooting.

Original Submission

Call for Research after Drone Near-Misses in the UK 31 comments

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) is calling for the UK Department for Transport and Civil Aviation Authority to conduct research into the effects of drones colliding with passenger jets, following reports of 23 near-misses between April 11th and October 4, 2015 in the UK:

In one incident a drone passed within 25m (82ft) of a Boeing 777 near London Heathrow Airport. [...] The incident at Heathrow was one of 12 that were given an "A" rating by the independent board, meaning there was "a serious risk of collision". It is the most serious risk rating out of five.

Other incidents given the most serious rating include a drone coming within 20m (66ft) of a[n] Embraer 170 jet on its approach to London City Airport above the Houses of Parliament on 13 September. On the same day, a Boeing 737 had a near miss with a drone shortly after take-off from Stansted Airport in Essex. Regulations set by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) prohibits unmanned aircraft from flying within 50m (164ft) of any vessel, vehicle or structure that is not in the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

[...] Many pilots think it's a matter of time before one actually strikes a plane, yet no-one has any real idea what would happen if it did. Balpa says it is possible a drone could smash the windscreen, showering the crew with glass, or even cause an uncontrolled engine fire which could bring down the aircraft. In 2009, an airliner lost both engines coming out of New York after it hit a flock of geese. It was only the skill of the pilot, gliding the aircraft down in an emergency landing on the Hudson River, that saved everyone's life. Balpa says a drone strike could be even worse, because they have powerful lithium batteries on board that could start an engine fire. It's now asking the government and the safety regulator to help pay for tests to see just how serious a drone strike might be.

BALPA Related: Laser Beam Incident Causes Redirection of Transatlantic Flight


[In before the pedants: yes, "near-miss" should be "near-hit', but that is what they used in their stories and I am running with it. -Ed.]

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:16PM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:16PM (#306378)

    We're one idiot away from a ban on lasers... And probably drones too.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:24PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:24PM (#306387) Journal

      We're one idiot away from a ban on lasers... And probably drones too.

      Let's ban idiots then. That'll fix everything.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:57PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:57PM (#306442)

        Trouble is, the non-idiots are obviously outnumbered, otherwise I might be tempted to agree with that suggestion.

        Well, that, and first I'd want to prove that I'm not an idiot, which is more challenging than you might think: I test well, but I've never considered that proof of non-idiocy.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday February 19 2016, @12:21AM

          by Hyperturtle (2824) on Friday February 19 2016, @12:21AM (#306650)

          This is true.

          Game developers know this as well. That is why the zombies outnumber the survivors.

          The stupid will always outnumber the smart, and it can be a depressing, losing battle. Worst of all, like zombies, the stupid often are not really clear on when they've won. They keep on being stupid.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:51PM (#306518)

        We're one idiot away from a ban on lasers... And probably drones too.

        Let's ban idiots then. That'll fix everything.

        That's it, off to the gulag with you then...

      • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Thursday February 18 2016, @08:30PM

        by arulatas (3600) on Thursday February 18 2016, @08:30PM (#306535)

        But where would we store all of the banned politicians?

        --
        ----- 10 turns around
        • (Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:23PM

          by TheReaperD (5556) on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:23PM (#306561)

          Might I suggest the bottom of the ocean?

          --
          Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:08PM (#306412)

      As long as they don't ban sharks with lasers we'll be OK.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:09PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:09PM (#306454)
        Sigh. I have to update my sig soon.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:01PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:01PM (#306550) Journal
          Yea, it's going to be 19 year old jokes soon.
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:32PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:32PM (#306568) Journal

          Pretty sure about 99% of the recent shark/laser jokes are actually due to your sig, so yeah, might be a good idea.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:42PM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:42PM (#306578)
            Heh. Fine with me, afterall my sig is accusing them of a-dolt-ry!
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday February 19 2016, @11:36AM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday February 19 2016, @11:36AM (#306813) Journal

          I modded GP +1 meta-funny.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:08PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:08PM (#306486) Journal

      I didn't know they had sharks in the Thames.

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:19PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:19PM (#306381) Homepage

    I don't have a link because it hasn't made the website yet, but some guy in the UK has just been jailed for 20 weeks for shining a laser at a police helicopter.

    The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) has called for lasers to be classified as "offensive weapons" and banned in the UK

    Well that's a bit much. They need to weight it against all the non-threatening, useful uses of laser pointers, such as entertaining yourself when you get to the cinema and the ads haven't even started, or annoying cats.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:22PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:22PM (#306386) Journal

      If there is a ban, it will just ban all lasers over a certain wattage. For example, the ones used to entertain cats are around 5 mW. 25 mW might be the max for presentation-grade pointers.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:33PM

        by DECbot (832) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:33PM (#306506) Journal

        It'd be absolutely moronic for the British to ban high wattage lasers, as usually the high wattage stuff is needed for doing things like laser beam welding [wikipedia.org], laser hybrid welding [wikipedia.org], laser cutting [wikipedia.org], laser cladding [wikipedia.org], laser spectroscopy [wikipedia.org], laser annealing, laser etching, and a whole slew of other things excluding military applications and being a dick [wikipedia.org]. While we're making stupid bans, since currents above 100mA could become lethal, we should classify devices drawing more than 100mA as weapons.

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:42PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:42PM (#306510) Journal

          I think they can sneak a line into their vellum full of exceptions for industrial uses.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:29PM

          by richtopia (3160) on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:29PM (#306564) Homepage Journal

          You are right, ban is wrong. However selling these items only to certified users would resolve that issue.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Friday February 19 2016, @03:26AM

            by CirclesInSand (2899) on Friday February 19 2016, @03:26AM (#306702)

            You start with a problem. You create a government program to fix it. Now you have 2 problems.

          • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 19 2016, @05:04AM

            by legont (4179) on Friday February 19 2016, @05:04AM (#306723)

            I bet that computers are even more dangerous. However, limiting source code access only to certified users would resolve that issue.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday February 19 2016, @07:16AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 19 2016, @07:16AM (#306762) Journal

        If there is a ban, it will just ban all hand-held, battery operated lasers over a certain wattage.

        That's your solution to save the other useful applications of lasers for the population.

        This is how Australia went [ozlasers.com].

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:35PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:35PM (#306425)

      I'll just leave this here [google.com].
      Don't remember hearing about a crash.

      The problem is that the pilots who don't expect the laser tend to over-react.
      I'm waiting for someone to start selling $25k adaptive shades for the pilots.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:24PM (#306466)

        That's because you won't. This is about effeminate passive aggressive pilots getting into a bitchy mode if they dare see a spot of "laser" light dance around their cockpit for a microsecond. I don't know what's worse, a stupid ignorant teen being stupid and ignorant by shining a laser at a plane, or a lying bastard of a pilot who claims he was BLINDED by a laser pointer at some critical moment of flight just to get attention and make a scene. The odds of someone actually shining a laser pointer into a pilot's eyes from the GROUND are practically nil (think trigonometry, gentlemen, the airplane is above you. How exactly is that beam going to bend to a horizontal direction to make it inside someone's pupil?) even before taking into account how impossible it is to hold one of those dots steady over a distance of a few feet let alone MILES. But hey, the proof is in the pudding. Laser pointers have been around for a good 20 years, and for a good 20 years idiots have been shining them at cars, helicopters and airplanes. Number of air crashes to date due to laser pointers? ZERO. Yeah, let's implement the death penalty for anyone who owns a laser pointer.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:24PM

          by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:24PM (#306497) Journal

          I agree with you overall, but you're really quite wrong on the physics.

          Typical laser pointers have divergence of about 1mrad, which means that for every 1km of range, the spot grows about 1m in diameter. Your characterisation of this as "a spot of 'laser' light danc[ing] around their cockpit" isn't right, as at likely distances, the spot is about the same size as a whole cockpit window. The dominant perception will be one of flickering as the beam sweeps on and off the window, not one of motion.

          Second, regarding the laser having to "bend to a horizontal direction", there's neither bending nor horizontals involved -- cockpit windows are designed to afford good view of the ground, and those diagonal lines of sight work both directions.

          The divergence of laser pointers works both ways -- on the one hand, it makes it much more likely that the beam does hit the cockpit windows, but on the other hand, it spreads the power over a larger area than one might expect, reducing the intensity and making the "permanent eye damage" FUD mentioned in TFS totally impossible. (Remember, common laser pointers are limited to single-digit mW power to be safe at short range -- when you spread that power such that the eye can only intercept a thousandth or millionth of it, you're talking uW and nW range, and even "dangerous" 1000mW lasers are reduced to eye-safe mW or uW range.)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:32PM (#306503)

            cockpit windows are designed to afford good view of the ground

            When was the last time you were in a cockpit? This is not true at all, especially in a commercial airliner. While you can see the ground several miles away from an aircraft, you cannot see the ground immediately under the aircraft even if you stand up out of your seat. Also note the body of the aircraft is much wider (and beneath) the cockpit windows [authentic-airliners.de].

            • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:14PM

              by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:14PM (#306621) Homepage

              While you can see the ground several miles away from an aircraft

              That depends how high you are, don't it?

              you cannot see the ground immediately under the aircraft even if you stand up out of your seat.

              Good job lasers only work when pointed straight up then, isn't it? Oh, wait...

              The forward view through a 747-400 cockpit window lets you look about 20 degrees downward. Side windows likely more.

              And even if you can't actually get a direct bead on a pilot's eye, the kind of ridiculously bright lasers we're talking about can still screw with your night vision when they're shone into a darkened cockpit.

              --
              systemd is Roko's Basilisk
              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:50PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:50PM (#306636)

                The forward view through a 747-400 cockpit window lets you look about 20 degrees downward.

                So calculate 20 degrees from this flight map [bbci.co.uk]. I'm guessing some ship in the middle of the N. Atlantic managed to hit a plane at its cruise altitude of 30,000+ft. How far was the ship from the plane, and how weak was the beam when it hit? Oh ok, let's take a different approach. Apparently the poor pilot received the "injury" about 6-7 miles after leaving LHR, and suffered his "blindness", brave soul, all the way past Ireland before deciding that he absolutely had to turn back because of his injury.

                Fortunately we have the log [flightaware.com]. It seems he was cleared up to 11,000 feet initially, climbing at around a pretty standard 2-3000ft/min. He was doing 270 knots which is about 4.5nm per minute. Apparently he was "hit" about 7 miles from the airport, so after about 2 mins. At that point he was at 4,100 ft altitude. Let's ignore the 10 degree pitch due to the climb for a minute. Do you care to figure out how far away that laser had to have been, with your 20% field of view, for him to see it?

                As for night vision - while yes it's true that pilots try to conserve their night vision, it's no longer critical. Commercial airlines fly under instrument flight rules (IFR) at night, and the instruments are quite bright enough to see even without night vision. It is absolutely not a critical factor. But either way, the pilot bravely persevered for well over an hour before deciding to turn back. It takes about 6 seconds for night vision to begin to return.

                Don't get me wrong. I am much happier to know that some disgruntled pilot, for whatever reason, didn't feel like flying to New York that night and happened upon some excuse to turn his plane around than to read about a suicidal pilot who decided to plunge 400 people into the N. Atlantic. However that doesn't change the fact that he's a lying BASTARD and that the laser "threat" is being blown, once again, out of all proportion.

                • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 19 2016, @12:06AM

                  by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday February 19 2016, @12:06AM (#306645) Homepage

                  I'm guessing some ship in the middle of the N. Atlantic managed to hit a plane at its cruise altitude of 30,000+ft.

                  That's not what happened.

                  Oh ok, let's take a different approach. Apparently the poor pilot received the "injury" about 6-7 miles after leaving LHR

                  So you do know what happened? Why were you talking about the plane getting hit over the Atlantic when you knew that wasn't the caes.

                  Let's ignore the 10 degree pitch due to the climb for a minute. Do you care to figure out how far away that laser had to have been, with your 20% field of view, for him to see it?

                  I said the forward view lets you see 20 degrees down. Planes have side windows as well. The view from them is likely wider - I couldn't find numbers, but it's a reasonble assumption - and not affected by climb angle.

                  Do you care to calculate how far you can shine a laser before it stops being an impediment to vision, bearing in mind that you have no idea how powerful the laser that was actually used was?

                  However that doesn't change the fact that he's a lying BASTARD and that the laser "threat" is being blown, once again, out of all proportion.

                  You have no more idea about what actually happened than I do, but you've settled on your conclusion and are assuming that all the other data, even that which you don't have, already fits your conclusion.

                  For all I know, the pilot could have caught a glancing "blow" from a laser which dazzled him briefly but was worrying enough to cause his blood pressure to increase and give him palpitations - reason enough for turning back a flight. Or his medical condition could ultimately turn out to be completely unrelated. He might have suffered a coincidental detached retina. Who knows? I don't, and nor do you.

                  --
                  systemd is Roko's Basilisk
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:31AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:31AM (#306654)

                    cause his blood pressure to increase and give him palpitations

                    In which case he should be grounded. Heart problems disqualify you from a private pilot's license, let alone a commercial pilot's license. My conclusion is that I've had laser pointers shined direcly at my eyes by aggressive university lecturers from less than 10 feet away and somehow my eyesight seems to have survived. I think the pilot is a liar.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:32AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:32AM (#306655)

                    Detached retina?? Do you think ISIS hit him with a laser canon?

                    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 19 2016, @08:38AM

                      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday February 19 2016, @08:38AM (#306777) Homepage

                      Learn to read. I said coincidental. Not that I think that's likely; I was merely pointing out that his "medical condition" (about which we have ZERO information) could turn out to be unrelated to the laser.

                      --
                      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @04:16PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @04:16PM (#306962)

                        So in other words, having NO EFFING IDEA what happened, you threw out a made up medical diagnosis based on NOTHING.
                        It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

                        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 19 2016, @05:00PM

                          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday February 19 2016, @05:00PM (#306976) Homepage

                          For god's sake...

                          I did that precisely to highlight the fact that no-one has any idea what happened.

                          --
                          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 19 2016, @07:51AM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 19 2016, @07:51AM (#306769) Journal

                    You have no more idea about what actually happened than I do, but you've settled on your conclusion and are assuming that all the other data, even that which you don't have, already fits your conclusion.

                    Well he is an Anonymous Coward, after all. What did you expect? Actual information, and reasoned argument?

          • (Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Friday February 19 2016, @02:59AM

            by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Friday February 19 2016, @02:59AM (#306696) Journal

            For kicks, let's come up with actual beam intensity in candela; since automobile headlamps are regulated in candela, this will offer a useful point of comparison.

            Let's assume a power of 5mW, wavelength of 555nm, which corresponds to the eye's peak sensitivity, and divergence of 1mrad. (I don't know of any 555nm lasers, but I can't be bothered to look up the lumens/W for the common 532nm green DPSSFD lasers.)

            Since the beam is (roughly) circular in cross-section, its area is π/4 * (1 mrad)2, or 8*10-7 sr
            At 555nm, the luminous flux is 683lm/W * 5mW = 3.4 lm
            The average luminous intensity of the beam is then 3.4 lm / 8*10-7 sr = 4.3*106 cd, but since the beam is not of uniform intensity, the peak intensity will be higher -- let's call it 107 cd for easy figuring.

            In comparison, the peak intensity of a single legal high-beam headlamp is generally about 106 cd, more or less. (IIRC 140 000 cd / side in Europe, 75 000 cd /side in the US, but I'm not certain that's current.) Since the inverse-square law applies, this factor of 1000 difference corresponds to a factor of about 30 (square root of 1000) in distance. Thus, an automotive high-beam headlamp viewed from 100m appears as bright as our 5mW green laser viewed from 3km. Of course, if we step up to a 50mW or 500mW laser, we're looking at a distance factor of 100 or 300, respectively.

            Now I'm sure the rules for dipping your headlights to low-beam vary widely, but where I live, it's 300 feet (90m) behind a car traveling the same direction, or 500 feet (150m) from an oncoming car; thus at any distance over about 3 miles (5 km), the glare from the laser is less than half (because cars have two headlamps) the glare drivers are required to tolerate from oncoming traffic. Even for distances as close as 1km, it's comparable to getting hit with both high beams at a distance of 50m, and I'm sure inconsiderate or forgetful drivers impose this on other drivers much more than 1440 times per year in the UK, causing much annoyance but little apparent harm, and AFAIK no outcry for new laws.

            Certainly, it seems incidents inside 1km (or involving more powerful lasers) could be a real problem -- after all, high beams rarely score a "direct hit" much closer than 50m, as the other car is rapidly exiting the brightest part of the beam, so that's about as high as our scale can meaningfully go. But I really wonder, out of these 1440 reported incidents per year, just how many actually are within this range, and how many are mere annoyances like drivers have to tolerate all the time?

            Of course, human vision is very complicated, so I really don't know whether the sudden/flickering nature of a hand-held laser jittering on and off the cockpit windows makes a real difference in dazzling effect, but this comparison at least gives us an approximate way to relate the intensities to personal experience.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Friday February 19 2016, @05:43AM

              by legont (4179) on Friday February 19 2016, @05:43AM (#306739)

              While I think the issue with lasers is overblown, the danger to pilots is way higher than to drivers. First, a pilot can get disoriented at night even without interference. It's called vertigo. Suddenly brain interprets visual signals wrong, side, up and down mixes, and it takes significant will to believe instruments and if they already way off, to correct. Many people lost their lives this way cause it can hit a pilot of any experience and training. Second, the reason pilots are good at such a complicated task is that almost everything in the task is expected and drilled. A step away from the ordinary creates unreasonable burden. Don't get me wrong, many pilots are actually like to play, but not with a few hundreds people behind. I can continue on and on. Also, a crash never has a single cause. It is always a chain of relatively minor issues. It's in fact true everywhere - if you have your high beam and some hot coffee on your lap your chance of a car crash suddenly become way too high for a comfort. A pilot has a much higher load of events and he can't stop and get himself together on the side. The problem - any problem - is usually triggered by unexpected and no sane pilot would tolerate a laser beam in his eyes on regular flight. In fact even using taxi lights on the ground too much is considered "impolite".

              --
              "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: 2) by hankwang on Friday February 19 2016, @07:05AM

              by hankwang (100) on Friday February 19 2016, @07:05AM (#306761) Homepage

              "a single legal high-beam headlamp is generally about 10^6 cd, more or less. (IIRC 140 000 cd / side in Europe,"

              Close enough. I think I read 225,000 cd as a maximum for both lights together (EU), the other day. But note that it's the maximum, not the typical value. Probably only achievable with high-end HID lamps.

              "but where I live, it's 300 feet (90m) behind a car traveling the same direction, or 500 feet (150m) from an oncoming car."

              I'm glad that I don't live there. Here (NL, EU) you are not allowed to use them at any visible distance. As a bicyclist with a 200 cd front lamp (pointing at the road surface) I highly appreciate that most drivers follow the rules, although the misadjusted 3000 cd LED lights of other cyclists are getting annoying these days.

              Anyway, the assumption of 5 mW is debatable, given how cheap the 500 mW ones are.

              http://www.aliexpress.com/popular/500mw-green-laser.html [aliexpress.com]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:53AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:53AM (#306791)

                Anyway, the assumption of 5 mW is debatable, given how cheap the 500 mW ones are.

                And how many idiots are pointing wimpy 5mW or lower lasers at planes? Those idiots play with the higher powered ones.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:50AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:50AM (#306790)
              While you use a 5mW laser as an example there are 1W and higher handheld ones for sale out there, practically unregulated, more than 100x the power. If you get blinded by a random laser you don't always know whether it's a low watt laser or high watt laser or if there is permanent damage or not. There is often no pain and your eyes/brain can fill in the gaps so you can't easily tell you have a new blind spot till stuff happens or you get an eye test.

              Many in the airline industry don't like pilots with impaired vision flying their planes, so better to land while the co-pilot is still OK (and doesn't have problems etc) - why risk bad PR if stuff happens (just look at the MH17 and MH370 incidents - people are boycotting MAS even though there's no clear proof yet that MAS or their pilots did anything more wrong than other average airlines/pilots were doing)

              From what I gather it's more likely for your eye lenses to focus the light from the laser into a very small hot dot than for them to focus the headlamp light into a very small hot dot - it would be a bigger less hot dot at the back of your retina. So while you could probably get blinded by briefly staring at some headlamps very close, the danger distance drops off far more rapidly than for a laser. Even laser light from reflections might still stay collimated enough to do damage.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by hankwang on Thursday February 18 2016, @10:00PM

          by hankwang (100) on Thursday February 18 2016, @10:00PM (#306584) Homepage

          "Laser pointers have been around for a good 20 years,"

          Yes, the 1 mW red ones. Twenty years ago I was a student in a lab with a 500 mW argon laser that drew about 5 kW of electricity and loads of cooling water. Fifteen years ago we had 5 W of green laser light from a solid-state laser in a unit that only drew 1 kW. Nowadays you can buy 500 mW green, hand-held, battery-powered lasers from China for less than $15. Wattages went up and green is much more effective than red for killing night vision.

          Note that 200 mW is way into class 3B, which requires key switches and interlock connections in order to be allowed to be sold in the US and EU.

          Permanent eye injury is unlikely, though, in the case of a pilot at hundreds of meters distance and high speed.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:39AM (#306677)

            I'd argue against even temporary eye injury. Distraction - yes. Annoying - yes. Reason to turn a flight around? No. Of course if some pilot is suffering some aerial form of "road rage", just gets pissed and says "fuck this, I'm not flying" then perhaps his psychological profile needs to be examined. Speaking of dangerous things you realize that human beings can sneeze at almost any time, and there is absolutely no way to keep your eyes open during this process. I'd say sneezing is more dangerous than laser pointers.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:15AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:15AM (#306786)
              Most pilots don't stay blind for minutes after they sneeze.

              I had a friend who got temporarily (well he seemed to be able to see later on) blinded by a laser and he was blind for many minutes and had to hold on his mom to walk about. And this was from some laser light show and not from some 5W thing in China that too many kids and adults treat as toys.
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @10:52PM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday February 18 2016, @10:52PM (#306604) Homepage

          (think trigonometry, gentlemen, the airplane is above you. How exactly is that beam going to bend to a horizontal direction to make it inside someone's pupil?)

          Think about a plane's windows, dumbass. The ground is not invisible from the pilot's seat.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:00PM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:00PM (#306447) Homepage Journal

      He advised carving the word "BULLSHIT" into a piece of aluminum foil then placing it over the end of a flashlight. I don't think it would really work unless you also included a projection lens.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:16PM (#306458)

      > some guy in the UK has just been jailed for 20 weeks for shining a laser at a police helicopter.

      In this AC's opinion that punishment is just about right. Out of the more than 8000 incidents of laser illuminations there have been no cases of any accidents. So the punishment there seems to fit the crime - enough to be a deterrent, but not enough to ruin a man's life.

      Long term I think the solution will be externally mounted cameras and either VR headsets for the pilots or a replacement of cockpit windows with video displays that mimic windows. It is just orders of magnitude more feasible to protect the planes than it is to control millions of drunk dumbasses.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:11PM (#306555)

      What exactly is an "offensive weapon". The summary just uses that term without explaining it for non-British readers that aren't familiar with British laws..

      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:42PM

        by mhajicek (51) on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:42PM (#306630)

        According to Monty Python it includes shields.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:41AM (#306737)

        Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (aka "star wars") are considered defensive weapons.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 19 2016, @12:28AM

      by isostatic (365) on Friday February 19 2016, @12:28AM (#306653) Journal

      Well that's a bit much. They need to weight it against all the non-threatening, useful uses of laser pointers, such as entertaining yourself when you get to the cinema and the ads haven't even started, or annoying cats.

      For USians it's a good move. Get lasers classified as "offensive weapons" and the NRA will have your six (ala https://xkcd.com/504/) [xkcd.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:21PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:21PM (#306383)

    Right after they called for a ban ... how convenient.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:27PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:27PM (#306389) Homepage

      Right before, in fact.

      In any case, with 168 laser incidents at Heathrow alone in 2014, this is hardly a rare event.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:28PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:28PM (#306390) Journal

      You'll want to read the summary a bit more carefully, although I wouldn't be surprised if BALPA has called for a ban before.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:31PM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:31PM (#306391) Homepage

        The British Airline Pilots Association, not to be confused with the British Association of Laser Pointer Aficianados.

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:36PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:36PM (#306394)

        How many have resulted in the flight turning around. This just seems too convenient.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:50PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:50PM (#306403) Journal

          You sound like my conspiracy-minded IRL friend. Of course they faked this incident, BALPA fired a high powered laser at the cockpit and/or the pilot faked eye discomfort!

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:04PM

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:04PM (#306449)

            Doesn't seem that conspiratorial to me at all, this has been going on for a long time. People don't like lasers pointed at them and react spitefully and angrily when it happens. People also don't really take the damage a laser can do all that seriously, especially when they're the one in control of it. If a pilot got one in the eye, it could do a lot of damage and possibly end their career, obviously pilots don't like that and want something done about it. I would too if people were doing something that could impact my career.

            The catch 22 being most people only do it because they're told not to. So telling them not to only encourages more people to do it.

            --
            "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
        • (Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:52PM

          by SecurityGuy (1453) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:52PM (#306519)

          It's not convenient. It's coincidence. Powerful lasers are cheap and easy to get and stupid people are abundant.

        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 19 2016, @12:09AM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday February 19 2016, @12:09AM (#306646) Homepage

          Again, what's "convenient" about it? The incident occured, the plane turned back, and then the ban was called for.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:32PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:32PM (#306569)

        Duh, I see what you meant about the summary. I was looking for dates and the referenced it by the flight number.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BananaPhone on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:48PM

    by BananaPhone (2488) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:48PM (#306402)

    You know what I'm talking about if you drive at night.
    Those blue-ish headlights on cars or those newer LED headlights.
    If it's on your car, there great.

    If you are driving towards one, you are blinded.
    People think you are using your high beams or worse.

    No laws on those things

    • (Score: 2) by shrewdsheep on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:57PM

      by shrewdsheep (5215) on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:57PM (#306407)

      Close one eye, same for next car. Use remaining eye in case of emergency.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:44PM (#306431)

        Arrrr!

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:04PM (#306411)

      You know what I'm talking about if you drive at night.
      Those blue-ish headlights on cars or those newer LED headlights.
      If it's on your car, there great.

      If you are driving towards one, you are blinded.
      People think you are using your high beams or worse.

      No laws on those things

      There are laws, the issue is people retrofitting them into cars that were not designed for them and nothing being done to police that. HID lamps need to be in housings designed to focus them tighter than an old halogen bulb needs to be, if you put it into a halogen reflector housing you're going to cause problems. Also a housing designed for HIDs has a lens in front of the bulb which filters UV as well. LEDs are even more precisely focused than cars with stock HID lamps and have the least glare issues.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Snow on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:14PM

      by Snow (1601) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:14PM (#306417) Journal

      This makes me want to put a set of huge ass set of rally lights on the front of my car. Then when those assholes are coming towards me with their brights on, I'll fucking blind them with 500,000,000 candlepower of halogen goodness.

      I'll get them installed at the same time as my RPG launcher and helicopter VTOL mod.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:47PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:47PM (#306435) Journal

        I'll get them installed at the same time as my RPG launcher

        A Role Playing Game launcher? Now that sounds like an interesting weapon. However I fear it might be classified as weapon of mass distraction.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:32PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:32PM (#306424)

      -1 Ignorant.

      There absolutely *are* laws on HID lights (I guess that's "-2 Ignorant", since you didn't know about the laws, and you didn't even know they're called "HIDs"). In Europe, they're required to have auto-leveling control systems installed so that the inclination of the car is detected and the headlights are automatically adjusted to be level, so they don't blind oncoming drivers. They're also required to have optics designed in a particular way so that light is blocked towards oncoming drivers, but not towards the side of the road, which is why they're assymetic: in the US or continental Europe, they'll shine more light to the right than to the left for this reason (opposite in the UK/Japan).

      If you're being blinded by them, that's either because you're driving through some hilly terrain and catching it at the wrong point, or more likely, you're seeing someone who's installed an aftermarket set in their vehicle. Aftermarket ones are supposed to have auto-leveling too, but no one actually does that, and there's zero enforcement. Remember, cops don't care about enforcing any traffic laws except for speeding.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:11PM

        by vux984 (5045) on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:11PM (#306455)

        In my experience, I generally only have issues with the ones on trucks, especially if they've got oversize wheels & raised suspensions. Their headlights are above eye level in a typical compact or sports car. Then even if they they are pointing 'down', they're still aimed right in my face. They're nearly as bad behind me as they are in oncoming as they shine in through the side rearview mirrors.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 19 2016, @05:57PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 19 2016, @05:57PM (#307002)

          That's exactly why I think high-mounted headlights should be completely banned; all headlights should be mounted at small-car level, even on trucks, to avoid blinding people through their side mirrors.

          I've long thought it'd be really cool to make an automatic side mirror control system which detects truck headlights in the rearview mirror, then automatically adjusts the mirror's position to shine that light back into the truck driver's face.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:16PM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:16PM (#306491) Journal
        > They're also required to have optics designed in a particular way so that light is blocked towards oncoming drivers, but not towards the side of the road, which is why they're assymetic: in the US or continental Europe, they'll shine more light to the right than to the left for this reason (opposite in the UK/Japan).

        Yeah ALL headlights are setup like that.

        I still find HIDs are road hazards. Even on a divided highway there are points where if the timing is right these things will night-blind you from the other side of the road.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:45PM

      by Bot (3902) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:45PM (#306432) Journal

      Newfangled traffic lights are too powerful. I couldn't stand them when they were installed, I adapted to them, but still it entails worse overall vision unless my retinas have somehow got a better dynamic range. Now I don't recall any sensor transplant, not even a firmware update, so...

      --
      Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Osamabobama on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:09PM

      by Osamabobama (5842) on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:09PM (#306453)

      I want a pop-up shade for the back of my car, covered with a highly reflective material, such as Scotchlite by 3M. The goal would be to have the driver behind me enjoy the same level of illumination that I get through my rear-view mirror.
      An early James Bond film featured a pop-up shield against bullets; that's all I want, but for light.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:18PM (#306461)

        There is a little flip-switch on your rear-view mirror that will fix that problem for you. If you drive a modern car the mirror will automatically engage the dimming mode for you.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:15PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:15PM (#306490)

          That fixes your center mirror, but your sideview mirrors will still reflect it at you.

          Or I suppose I could just adjust them so they're totally useless for driving since I hardly ever use them anyway.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:41AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:41AM (#306658)

            I just lower my side mirrors a bit if I'm night driving for a long time, such as on a highway. Then if I need to look in the driver side mirror, I just lower my head a little to look in it. Works great to keep from getting blinded while you're just driving straight ahead.

    • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:34PM

      by digitalaudiorock (688) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:34PM (#306507) Journal

      meanwhile blinding headlights on cars is OK

      Thank you...glad I'm not just me. I find that it's not just those blue xenon headlights, but also many others that are just WAY to bright. This seems to be especially true for non-U.S. makes. That's been an auto industry arms race that's gone totally unchecked for decades, resulting in nobody being able to see well. What especially pisses me off is that it was all a cure for which there is no known disease. Headlights, and their high beam when necessary, worked fine decades ago.

      Around here they used to flunk you for inspection when your lights were a hair to high. They stopped all that, probably in part because SUVs have their headlights at eye level all the time. The worst case for me is when I have something like a Lexus SUV behind me with blazing blue headlights. At that point you pretty much have a night baseball game up your ass. Don't even get me started.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:46AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @12:46AM (#306660)

        The only countermeasure for this is dark, dark window tint on your rear window.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:52PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:52PM (#306404) Journal

    I hear 25 mW green lasers (or is it 100 mW?) are good for pointing at stars. Better get them before they are banned. Anybody use these?

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:57PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @04:57PM (#306406) Journal

      Mine is only 50 megawatt. :^(

    • (Score: 2) by elgrantrolo on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:12PM

      by elgrantrolo (1903) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:12PM (#306414) Journal

      woah, that might get us into even bigger trouble than airplanes crashing.

      Didn't you see how this film started? (it was a really bad film, skip it you have the choice)
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440129/ [imdb.com]

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:12PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday February 18 2016, @11:12PM (#306617) Journal

        Oh god! That film! I just had to watch it at least once to see how on earth somebody makes a movie out of a board game about naval battles and somehow involves aliens. I would recommend for the sanity of other readers to just watch the Cinema Sins [youtube.com] episode and call it good!

    • (Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:15PM

      by scruffybeard (533) on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:15PM (#306418)

      I don't recall the power, but I have a green laser pointer that I use for stargazing. The green light shows up well against the night sky.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:31PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:31PM (#306423) Journal

        If there's a sticker on the device the mW power measurement may be printed on it.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:00PM (#306446)

          The stated power is at the frequency of the laser. There have been some cheap laser pointers (I think green) out of China that didn't bother to block IR [spie.org] and they were putting out dangerous levels of IR power, so you have to be careful what you have and how you use it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:03PM (#306448)

    They got tired of the low pay and abuse, now you can claim a laser strike to get back at 'em.

    • (Score: 1) by YeaWhatevs on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:05PM

      by YeaWhatevs (5623) on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:05PM (#306451)

      Actually this sounds like my excuses for taking off. Vision problems, I couldn't see coming into work. *NEW*, now due to laser incident.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:22PM (#306464)

      I can't believe laser pointers can have such an effect. It seems so much drama to me, like watching soccer pussies, sorry players, flying head over heels grabbing their face if anyone so much as breathes near them.

      Anyway, why not just put filters on the glass for the few common frequcies of laser. Pussyyyyyyyy!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:30PM (#306566)

        Imagine driving up to a busy intersection and having your windshield turn a solid green. The car is configured to explode if you break too much. What do you do?

        Go look at the videos of cockpit laser hits.

  • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:10PM

    by buswolley (848) on Thursday February 18 2016, @07:10PM (#306488)

    If I read a headline right, a laser was aimed at the Pope's plane recently

    --
    subicular junctures
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @01:32PM (#306870)

      What does it say when you read it wrong?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:36PM (#306990)

        It reads, "The pope shot a laser at Trump."

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @08:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @08:59PM (#306547)

    two similar notes in a couple of days but now with an "medical emergency". Just fascist an imperialist state trying to push more orwellian shit

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @08:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @08:35AM (#306776)

      So much this.

      A guy who covers police corruption at a local radio station here was arrested on suspicion of shining a laser at an air plane from his back yard. He didn't have any lasers on the premises and only used a mouse with the projectors in meetings... but they "found" one anyway. It's just yet another tool to squash dissent.

      Don't forget, any gun with laser sights will be banned shortly too.

      The primary tool of the police state is to make so many laws about so much trivial shit that they can arrest anyone at any time for political reasons and claim them to be breaking the law.

      Next they'll be outlawing spoons, because you could turn enough of them into a knife, or some shit.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:27PM (#306563)

    Just wait until they see my laser pointer mounted on a drone...

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Some call me Tim on Thursday February 18 2016, @10:03PM

    by Some call me Tim (5819) on Thursday February 18 2016, @10:03PM (#306586)

    Hell, just install some small laser guided missiles on the planes. Beam hits the plane, missile launches and follows the beam back to the source. Then we could find out who's doing this, granted it would probably have to be through DNA testing.

    --
    Questioning science is how you do science!
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Friday February 19 2016, @04:07AM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Friday February 19 2016, @04:07AM (#306706)

    I thought there were glasses made to avoid this problem? Probably cheaper to buy a set for every pilot than panic....

    • (Score: 2) by arslan on Friday February 19 2016, @05:22AM

      by arslan (3462) on Friday February 19 2016, @05:22AM (#306730)

      Yea, that's what I thought as well. How hard is it for the pilots to wear reflective sunnys. But then, its a good incident for the govies and politicos to screw with liberty, why let common sense get in the way eh?