Arrest made after laser attack on pilot

[Ben Longden]

 

An aircraft shows a laser attack from a Sydney suburb. (Nine)

 

VIEWS: 0

 

| FLOCKS: 0

 

| 0 comments so far

 

A man has been arrested after allegedly targeting a police helicopter with a laser pointer.

 

The Polair crew were hit with the green laser light at 10.15pm (AEST) Saturday as they conducted routine patrols of the Colyton area, in western Sydney.

 

A 29-year-old man was arrested at a unit block on Carpenter St, Colyton, after the helicopter crew were able to pinpoint the source of the laser.

 

Police seized a green laser pointer from the unit.

 

The man has been interviewed by Penrith police, but has been released pending further investigations. He has yet to be charged.

 

The laser attack follows another incident in south-west Sydney on Thursday night, when an 18-year-old man was arrested for shining a laser light at officers driving on Carlton Avenue in Chipping Norton.

 

NINE News

 

 

[Yenn]

How was the picture of the laser produced? I was under the impression that a laser was a non diverging light. The light shown was diverging and as such would be rapidly losing power with distance. I would expect that the only time you would be able to see a laser light was if you were in it's direct path and it would appear as a point source of bright light. You could of course see dust or smoke illuminated by the light, but that would reduce the power with distance.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There are aircraft lasers (see skygee.com) that diverge to a distance of 6,000ft wide at night to make them highly visible, possibly up to 20-30miles if you read the brochure. Not a bad idea to have one as an emergency device.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Can we stop calling these incidents "attacks"? Unless these people actually intended to harm or kill, it is *not* an attack. (see any dictionary)

 

Media and other idiots seem to think that with a laser like this you could actually blind pilots and bring down airliners. This is complete bull****: http://fas.sfu.ca/newsitems/laser-terrorism

 

Things get ever so slightly more "dangerous" when shining them at police choppers at night for sure, but recently, someone got two and a half years in jail for doing this. (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23505647-5006301,00.html) This is absolutely absurd! Looking at photo above, you can already see how far the beam has diverged and there is no way that this can be anything more than slightly anoying to the pilots.

 

Should this kind of thing be tolerated? Of course not! But let the punishment fit the danger. I am sure a little community service (and the annoyance of going through trial in the first place!) will be more than enough to deter.

 

 

[Ferris]

Basschefers, I don't know whether you're information is correct or not, because I've never been on the receiving end of a laser, however I'll recount a story told to me by a 737 Captain who I've known since his student pilot days, and you can decide for yourself.

 

While on approach into an Australian airport his aircraft came under laser attack, and his co-pilot was so severely distracted she was unable to continue flying the aircraft. The Captain had to make the landing while doing both the pilot and co-pilot jobs, as the co-pilot was no longer capable of safely flying the aircraft.

 

You'll note that I haven't identifed the airline or city involved for deliberate reasons, but the Captain describes landing at the airport as being 'technically difficult anyway' and the laser attack seriously jeopardised the safety of his aircraft. This pilot stated he has been on the receiving end of lasers a couple of times and described them as being a serious distraction in the cockpit and quite dangerous. For his airline, lasers are a significant safety issue.

 

Unfortunately if the information our friendly 737 Captain is correct (and I have no reason to doubt his word) then defence lawyers acting on behalf of laser attackers will use information gained from forums such as this, and these academics to dismiss laser attacks as nothing more than a storm in a tea cup. If major airlines are worried about laser attacks, then I think we should perhaps take notice of them.

 

Maybe the academic you have quoted would have a different opinion if he had been the victim of a laser attack while on final.

 

Cheers

 

Ferris

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Ferris. You see the problem is, few people have been. Obviously, many pilots would rather not see this and are prone to over exaggerating to get legislation passed, which is understandable.

 

For instance, nothing in your story indicates why this pilot was so distracting. Even if you are cool and controlled enough to be an ATP, if you strongly believe that looking at a little green laser pointer shone at you from 5KM away is going to make you blind and you decide that for that paranoid reason you can't look up anymore, of course you are going to dump your workload on the other pilot. It doesn't mean that if they were trained that it was only mildly distracting and was not going to harm them and they should just keep doing what they are doing, the outcome might have been very different.

 

Paranoid pilots are likely to pose a much bigger danger than the actual laser pointer!

 

Googling turns up some hilarious FAA "proof" of what it looks like. Except that this was done in a flight simulator, with the laser fixed and not held in someone's hand and the images were taking with late 90s consumer digital snap-shooter with a sensor not even remotely capable of recording what it would look like to the human eye. (few cameras would be able to nowadays either)

 

Other than media stories that take for granted how dangerous it is, I have seen no proof, especially by scientists who know their physics. Apart from the link I posted, Google will turn up many skeptic scientists.

 

What I would like to see if it actually being done to a real aircraft. Two test pilots, one flying instruments under the hood and the other looking out. Put some cameras there for good measure and some sensors that measure "hits" and intensity. The let average Joe Schmuck "attack" the windshield with a little hand held laser from outside the perimeter.

 

Until someone actually does that and shows what actually happens, I am going to have to stick with the science. And punish those who pull these pranks, but not with years in jail.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

My understanding is the picture is a still image taken from a police helicopters' onboard video camera.

 

The camera has a wide angle setting, and though they should have used the frame where the camera is lazed, it shows as a green dot. A bloody bright dot. This frame I guess was chosen because the perspective from the wide angle lens shows the beam.

 

To illustrate the point, have a really wide angle lens (at least an 20mm) on a still camera, and point a pencil at the lens while looking through the viewfinder. The resulting perspective distortion will make the parallel sided pencil look huge close to the lens.

 

I think Ive mentioned it in a previous post, but I was lazed with a low power pointer at night several years ago. I was disabled from driving during the incident, and had to pull over as I could not see the road. Never mind the pain and after images for a couple of hours.

 

The point is, lasers themselves are not dangerous, and in use with 99.999% of the population they are safe. Its the intelligentia of our population that decide its a bit of fun to shine them at peoples eyes. Only then does it become an issue.

 

As for jailing offenders... lock the bastards up and throw the key away, even though they will protest they "were only having a bit of fun".

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I think Ive mentioned it in a previous post, but I was lazed with a low power pointer at night several years ago.

Key question: from how far away was this?

 

 

[Ferris]

G'day Basscheffers, Far be it for me to get into an argument with you, as I am not sufficiently informed about lasers to argue either way. It just seems odd to me that the airlines would be complaining about a non-existant problem if we are too accept your argument.

 

Perhaps I should have included a bit more of the story from this airline pilot as he related it to me. The Captain seriously considered aborting the landing and diverting, but elected to continue on with the landing on the basis, that had he diverted, he would have encouraged future attacks. We can argue about whether he should have continued on, or not, but that is a whole different argument. I can't answer Ben's question about distance.

 

I can only re-iterate that this pilot stated it was very distracting in the cockpit and he regards lasers as quite dangerous. Here is a very experienced pilot talking from personal experience. Maybe you could find somebody who can relate through first hand experience, that lasers are not distracting

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The Captain seriously considered aborting the landing and diverting, but elected to continue on with the landing on the basis, that had he diverted, he would have encouraged future attacks.

That's odd, not aborting in what he deems an immediately dangerous situation to prevent a *possible* future danger? To me that sounds like "it wasn't really dangerous, but I am making a big point of it regardless." We seriously need more facts on this case I think.

 

Maybe you could find somebody who can relate through first hand experience, that lasers are not distracting

First of all, I am not advocating that it is not distracting, nor that it should not be illegal to do. Secondly, personal experience stories give an enormous sampling error, so to speak. Even if I knew a pilot that said they had been "lased" on final and didn't find it distracting, it would not convince me either way.

What I am advocating is that proper research into this should be done, not media-fueled knee-jerk reactions (calling it an "attack") and anecdote-based over the top sentencing. Any punishment is likely enough.

 

People should be educated not to do it (heck, make it sound worse than it is for all I care) and pilots should be trained not to panic as, no, it will not cause permanent eye damage at those distances and the short exposures - that is a scientific fact. The only thing under dispute is the amount of distraction and possible temporary degradation of night vision. (probably none, compared to how bright runway lights are)

 

And you have to remember just how incredibly hard it is to point a laser pointer at even a couple of dozen meters - let alone the kilometers involved in trying to hit the windshield of a moving airliner!

 

In fact, it seems my brother is buying one. (5mw green) So hopefully well go out in the sticks in the next month or so and do some actual tests as there don't seem to be any on the intarweb at the moment. We'll fully document, obviously.

 

 

[Yenn]

If the laser diverges it must get weaker with distance. If it doesn't diverge there will be very little loss of energy, so it will be dangerous, but for an aircraft travelling at say 100kts the time the laser could be pointing at the pilots eye would be very short, unless there was some sort of tracking device.

 

What we don't seem to know on this forum is how long a laser has to be focussed onto the eye to cause a problem and I suspect it is measured in milli seconds.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

It certainly diverges; a couple of kilometers away the diameter of these laser pointers is huge and so doesn't carry a lot of power. (see http://fas.sfu.ca/newsitems/laser-terrorism and other Google results)

 

Of course, that does make it more dangerous for helicopters (low over urban areas for police helos) and smaller aircraft with a very low nose attitude on approach that you can hit from close by. "Heavies" with their very long, high attitude approaches and pilots seated quite far back, hitting them from the ground at close distance would likely be almost impossible. They might see a green beam (green laser are much more visible in the atmosphere than red ones) but this is unlikely to actually hit them in the eyes.

 

Before it does permanent damage takes quite a long time: http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2800.html but of course the issue is temporary loss of (night) vision. Unfortunately, I can't find any research on that and I am hoping to find out for myself when we get one of these in. Somehow I get the feeling that at kilometer-distances I will have to radio my brother "higher, lower, left, right" before he is able to hit me (stationary!) and even then it will be the occasional flash!

 

Going back to the original photo above, both the beam and source point are not nearly as bright as some other lights in the picture. I am sure it would get brighter if the pilots were to get it straight in there eyes but the chances of that happening are quite remote. Also realize that the point of origin is now well known and looking at it directly can now easily be avoided. The chances of the "attacker" illuminating them by surprise with a direct hit to the face are sub zero.

 

Annoyance? Absolutely. "Disaster waiting to happen"? (as the judge said in the earlier case where the dude got more than two years) No sir.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Who cares how damaging it is? Any person who has a predisposition toward DELIBERATELY harming or attempting to harm others, whether it's illegal or not, has got it coming to them. I don't mind if they go away for 20 years.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Any person who has a predisposition toward DELIBERATELY harming or attempting to harm others, whether it's illegal or not, has got it coming to them.

I fully agree, but that is making the assumption all these people are doing just that. There are many ignorant people out there that do not realize this could be dangerous. You really want people to be put away for years because of an uninformed prank that *could* have harmed someone, but actually didn't?

People do far more dangerous things all the time (drink drive, cell phone use in car, reading a newspaper in the car, etc) yet these only get you a small fine and some points on your license. By your logic, all these things can hurt someone (and actually have, many times) so anyone caught doing these things should go to jail for 20 years also?

 

You must put things into perspective.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

It would be stupid to turn this into an off topic debate, but since you have misrepresented my statement I need to correct you. First, you will notice I capitalised the word DELIBERATELY. I was clearly referring to intentionally harmful behaviour. Your statement about "my logic" and your examples of actions that are NOT intentionally harmful, is a misinterpretation of what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Second, your statement that people could get put away for an "uninformed prank" is another misrepresentation. I doesn't work that way in the real world.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Isince you have misrepresented my statement I need to correct you.

My apologies, I did not mean to misrepresent you, I interpreted the emphasis as your assumption the people involved in these cases were deliberately out to harm people.

 

your examples of actions that are NOT intentionally harmful

Maybe not intentional, but there is much more public knowledge about the dangers of these actions and still people knowingly do it. Few people will likely realise the possible dangers of using laser pointers this way.

 

Second, your statement that people could get put away for an "uninformed prank" is another misrepresentation. I doesn't work that way in the real world.

I must disagree on this one, I think it has happened: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23505647-5006301,00.html This and other news reports do not talk about evidence supporting him meaning harm. My guess is it was a matter of "cool, lets see if I can see the laser dot on that helicopter!" (and then being a total idiot in his response when confronted), not: "I want to blind these pilots".

 

 

[Kaz]

There has been plenty of media coverage about this sort of thing. Anyone who does it knows exactly what they are doing and what will happen to the if they are caught. There are numerous reports of laser strikes every day it's happening to all sorts of aircraft.

 

It doesn't matter whether people do it to be funny or to try and make the plane crash - pilots are responsible for passengers lives whether it's 1 or 350 people and there should be zero tolerance. Stupidity is not an acceptable excuse for anything.

 

I would like to think that the prosecutor looked at the whole situation when he was sentenced. He sounds like a complete tool.

 

They searched his vehicle and found a rifle, silencer, ammunition and knuckledusters. Baldetti said the firearms were for shooting feral animals on a relative's property while the knuckledusters were left by a friend.

The court heard that when police put to Baldetti it was an offence to shine a laser at an aircraft he replied: "What about him shining a big f...ing torch at me."

 

Asked if he was aware of the dangers of shining a laser, Baldetti told police that "he started it".

[Guest basscheffers]

There are numerous reports of laser strikes every day it's happening to all sorts of aircraft.

If that is the case and it really is dangerous enough to warrant jail time, then why are we not seeing actual accidents because of this?

 

I would like to think that the prosecutor looked at the whole situation when he was sentenced.

According to all reports I can find, he was only sentenced for the laser incident, not anything else. You can't get a higher sentence for one crime because you have also committed another. In that case you would get sentences for each offense, which would accumulate.

 

He sounds like a complete tool.

And he is, but being a tool is not a crime.

 

 

[Kaz]

If that is the case and it really is dangerous enough to warrant jail time, then why are we not seeing actual accidents because of this?

Risk Management... do we want to wait for something bad to happen before we act? There is the potential for a pilot to get a laser flash in the eye on finals which causes him to have an accident on the runway. Do we wait for that to happen? I know it's illegal to do a bunch of things and the consequence isn't much of a deterrant (fine/points etc) but right or wrong, Aviation Safety is taken a lot more seriously than other issues.

 

Baldetti also pleaded guilty to weapons charges and had nine months added to his laser sentence.

I think in some circumstances they can combine charges - Unsure.

 

And he is, but being a tool is not a crime.

No it's not... but it's not an excuse either.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Risk Management... do we want to wait for something bad to happen before we act?

Of course not, but what we do want is scientific, independent research into the risk and base regulations and penalties on those findings. So far I have not seen any.

Strong sentences for reasons of "we don't really know, so lets just be go hard on this" are no good for anybody involved - especially when doing the research required is so simple.

 

Laser pointers are a fact of life now, always will be. More important than issuing "example making" sentences, real research into the dangers and training pilots on how to deal with them will in the long term make for far greater safety.

 

The reality right now is that most of what people know about lasers is based on movie plots and wild dreams of cowboy-presidents, not on actual fact. And that includes prosecutors and judges.

 

 

[antzx6r]

If you remember back before that young girl died on the highway north of wollongong, rocks were being thrown at cars from overhead walkways with out accidents happening. Fences were put up, things were done but the little buggers just didn't get the seriousness of it. Now they do...

 

We don't want it to wait till some small d?*k fool figures on hitting a small passanger plane on short finals leaving the only pilot unable to do anything but apply power and hope the aircraft settles in a balanced level climb till the dazzle where's off. Hands up who wants to be in that situation. thumb_down

 

 

[Yenn]

Hey antzx6r are they the same small d?*k fools that rape 10 year old girls?

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Key question: from how far away was this?

About 100 metres.

 

Ben

 

 

[antzx6r]

Hey antzx6r are they the same small d?*k fools that rape 10 year old girls?

Ha... probably. Tho I'm thinking more the type still at home in they're 30's, think they've 'made it' when they get a fully sick wrx, can't hold down any job except maybe maccas(and stay there long enough to become manager), you know the ones. The ones that get the 16y/o's(or at least they thought so at the time;)) pregas then deny ever knowing them. Just should have been drowned at birth. Enough venting.

 

 

[rick-p]

People, there are, without naming them, civilised countries in this world who's law enforcement officers shoot people when they see a red or green dot on their person.

 

Laser light because it is used for targeting many weapons including some that will bring down an aircraft, if pointed at an aircraft and seen by the pilot/s, pilot/s who also fly in countries other than Australia, may well be sorely concerned about their safety at that time.

 

If you go into a bank with a toy gun and show that gun to the staff and hold up the bank that is an armed hold up.

 

If you point a laser light at an aircraft knowing that it is wrong to do so then you have committed the act with malice as you intended to, without question, notwithstanding the level of the result you wished to achieve, whether it just be to annoy the pilot/s or at the other end of the scale bring the plane down.

 

Basically, the point is it's wrong so don't do it and if you do then you deserve what you get which in some cases and some countries is a body bag.

 

Rick-p