SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday February 19 2016, @02:38PM
First off: I completely accept without reservation that the shining of a ground-based laser into the cockpit of a flying aircraft can be a serious safety issue, which given that that safety issue is created up in the air, puts at risk life and limb of passengers and crew, as does any safety issue at that altitude.
That said, let's think about this. Now Jim McAuslan, General Sec'y of the British Airline Pilots Assn. didn't think about it, apparently, but let's us do it now.
We have on the one hand,
Okay. "Crew reported laser beam sighting." Good so far...
Now. "Serious, widespread laser attacks on aircraft."
I would posit here that what's serious and widespread is the mis-characterization of laser safety incidents like this one. The same guy is calling, in the name of the Pilots Association, for lasers to be legally considered offensive weapons [bbc.co.uk].
There is a certain amount of perverse sense here, in that if people were attacking and shooting planes down with lasers, as McAuslan seems to be claiming, then by all means the laser weapons shooting down the planes would be offensive weapons by definition.
One little problem, and some of you may see where I am going with this...
It's not "laser weapons shooting down planes," but rather "jerks shining planes with laser pointers." Now, while this does have an adverse affect on safety, and is therefore very serious, the problem is that lying and saying that the planes are under serious and widespread attack by laser weapons not only is intellectually annoying in the extreme, but shows very little respect for the actual problem. Do we really need to lie about what's happening, instead of just admitting that shining lasers at planes is a safety risk already punishable under law (in various countries/jurisdictions), and a stupid, dangerous, and threatening thing to do? I would have thought that this question would be rhetorical until McAuslan demonstrated otherwise.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Friday February 19 2016, @04:20PM
As reported in a recent Soylent story [soylentnews.org] ('storylent'? 'soy'?):
Doesn't that count as widespread?
Even the use of the word 'attacks' seems understandable to me, as that may be the effect in the cockpit, whatever the perpetrator's intent. (Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to reckless actions.)
Mind you, I don't see the need for aircraft-specific laws on this; wouldn't it be just as dangerous to shine laser beams into cars, lorries, and other vehicles? Or anywhere there's a good chance of people's vision being harmed or where being temporarily blinded might be dangerous? A well-worded general law, covering all these, would seem more appropriate. (After all, we don't class cars as offensive weapons; we just legislate against their more dangerous uses.)
In any case, I expect a few high-profile convictions may go a long way to raising awareness, and reducing the number of jerks who do this sort of thing without realising the consequences.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @07:04PM
There are aircraft specific laws about tons of stuff less dangerous than lasers. Tickling, sneezing, ice cream, etc:
http://www.fly-buy.me/2012/07/aviation-law-gone-awry.html [fly-buy.me]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:38PM
Are any of these true? Or are they true by nature that they've been in fortune files and usenet for decades? I took one at random, the burping prohibition in Halstead, and I can't find any actual law anywhere, just the same lists that you put up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @12:50AM
Is it safe to assume they are fake then? Apparently it is illegal to post the actual laws online so people can check:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-state-of-georgia-copyright-wall-20150727-column.html [latimes.com]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday February 20 2016, @01:44PM
I do see some grey area here where perhaps the word "attacks" could be metaphorically applied to shining lights as in this instance, and the light-shining is certainly widespread, and is certainly a problem--no arguments there, really.
What I was trying to get across is that McAuslan is specifically claiming attacks by offensive weapons. Plenty of British and other planes have been attacked in a widespread manner by offensive weapons during the last hundred years, notably during two pretty involved wars. The comparison of that to blinking lights doesn't hold up, however risky the blinking lights may be.
I believe it would be better to work the problem from the angle of dangerous behavior on the part of laser-outlaw miscreants, rather than to claim widespread attacks on aircraft by offensive weapons, because I think the latter falsely lumps laser pointers in with anti-aircraft missiles, armed enemy aircraft, and the like.
I think that McAuslan is using this sort of language to overstate the problem in emotional terms.
Genuinely, I think the problem is bad enough without doing that. Anyone who endangers the lives and safety of others in such a way by deliberately (or otherwise) interfering with aircraft operations with a laser (or by whatever means) deserves the really stiff punishment coming to him.