# NJ man shines laser in cockpit, blames kid. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 4, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074 "2005-01-04T19:16:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/81 "2005-01-06T20:06:03Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Sure it’s a “moving target” but you’re not following it like a moving target – why? You know where it’s moving. You know how fast it’s going. These are constants. No, they’re not. Little matters of turbulence, and the fact that no two pilots are going to approach the runway in exactly the same fashion. > [@](#): > > It’s a plane coming in for landing not a bird escaping predation. And since you know where it’s going, you can point the green laser to THAT PLACE just like you’d point that laser at a point in the sky just like a star - which is done all of the time in amateur astronomy . Please tell me why this doesn’t work? I really don’t understand this problem. Let’s say you’ve decided that you know THAT PLACE where the plane is going to pass through on the way to the runway. But, whoopsie, there’s turbulence, or the pilot is slightly off the optimum flight path, or whatever. So the plane in fact passes a few feet above or below THAT PLACE. (Doesn’t have to be much…the cockpit window is not that tall.) So you have to adjust your aim, with very little time to do so. And right there is the problem. A minute adjustment of the target point several miles away translates into an unbelievably minute adjustment of the laser. Unless the plane is _exactly_ on your predicted flight path, you’re going to have to make a very minute adjustment of your aim on the fly. And, as I already said in the post I linked to, the precision of that adjustment needs to be enormous: a fraction of an inch of error at your end will translate into dozens of feet of error at the target end. You keep going on about duck shooting, but I suspect that you don’t actually hunt ducks from a distance of _several miles away_. We’re talking about hunting ducks at La Guardia airport from a duck blind in Central Park, or duck at LAX from a blind somewhere near Santa Monica. A moving target at that distance, even a smoothly moving one, is not the same as a moving target at a closer distance, even a randomly moving one. The fact that anyone is succeeding in this stunt at all suggests to me that the effect **Finagle** mentioned is coming into play: namely, that the beam is spreading out over that great distance, effectively increasing the diameter of the target (while at the same time decreasing the intensity of the laser dramatically). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/82 "2005-01-07T00:50:53Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > No, they’re not. Little matters of turbulence, and the fact that no two pilots are going to approach the runway in exactly the same fashion. First I should say that I also don’t agree that shinning a laser at an aircraft is a useful terrorist tactic, the only thing I’m arguing about is the idea that it is incredibly difficult to do it. Turbulence. You choose a calm day. Turbulence isn’t some kind of random phenomena, it is generally caused–at the altitudes we are talking about–by wind being disturbed by ground objects or thermals. Do your deed on a cool calm day and there will be no turbulence. Approach. You’d be surprised by just how accurate approaches are flown. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if the aircraft is slightly high or slightly low on the approach, you’ve been able to observe its approach path from the moment it turned finals, you can make minor adjustements _before_ it gets to your spot. Or you have your laser on a tripod and just track the aircraft all the way down it’s approach. You have a telescopic sight on it calibrated to whatever distance you think is most useful. You have the whole thing disguised as survey equipment or even just a camera. > [@Cisco](#): > > I grew up around pilots (both commercial and private), including my dad, (and I’ve got a few hours myself, but none off the ground in a commercial aircraft), and I called one of them yesterday to double check. When I asked how often commercial pilots manually landed, his answer was almost never. And it’s getting rarer, with the older Boeings being phased out and the newer Airbuses, Boeings, etc, being more and more “fly-by-wire” Well, if they really only do a manual landing “rarely” then I’ll make sure not to get a job with whatever airline it is they fly for. This act doesn’t need to be done in the US though. It would be just as effective (or ineffective, see my first comment) if performed on a UAL 747 filled with 400 passengers landing at Sydney. The point you make about the autoland is valid in one respect. Even if the pilots were landing manually at an autoland capable airport, they could conduct a missed approach and setup an autoland for the next approach with the assistance of anyone who doesn’t have spots floating around in front of their eyes. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/83 "2005-01-07T19:18:15Z")
> [@1920s Style "Death Ray"](#): > > Approach. You’d be surprised by just how accurate approaches are flown. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if the aircraft is slightly high or slightly low on the approach, you’ve been able to observe its approach path from the moment it turned finals, you can make minor adjustements _before_ it gets to your spot. Or you have your laser on a tripod and just track the aircraft all the way down it’s approach. You have a telescopic sight on it calibrated to whatever distance you think is most useful. You have the whole thing disguised as survey equipment or even just a camera. Sure these are the steps you need to take, but our point is the _actual execution_ of them is nigh on impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/84 "2005-01-09T10:09:37Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Sure these are the steps you need to take, but our point is the _actual execution_ of them is nigh on impossible. What part of any of that is “nigh on impossible”? Please consider that someone has already done this without taking any elaborate steps (as per the OP story) when answering. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/85 "2005-01-09T10:20:12Z")
> [@Nanoda](#): > > Lasers are a [known problem](http://www.ltjackdaly.com/articles/Pat%20Barnes_101199.htm) for pilots. Got a little question about that link. Just who is “The Canadian Press”? That’s who the linked article was attributed to and I’ve never heard of a news outlet called “The Canadian Press”. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/86 "2005-01-09T17:40:13Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > Got a little question about that link. > > Just who is “The Canadian Press”? That’s who the linked article was attributed to and I’ve never heard of a news outlet called “The Canadian Press”. It’s a news service like ‘The Associated Press’. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/87 "2005-01-12T13:22:55Z")
> [@1920s Style "Death Ray"](#): > > What part of any of that is “nigh on impossible”? You know, doing all that “stuff” you’re talking about it. Riding a unicycle on a balance beam is easy on paper too. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/88 "2005-01-12T14:48:52Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > An excellent question, sir. Who the heck _is_ advocating that? > > No, really. Who? Name one person in this thread who’s advocating that. ONE. Err . . . a rhetorical question perhaps aimed, since everyone here is discussing the technical feasibility of the event, at those actually committing the offense? If you’ll notice in my post above, any question I might have had for an individual here was so directed, whereupon he then responded in kind. NPR reports this morning that there has now been a momentous increase in the number of reported events involving lasers targeting cockpits, so take your pick. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/89 "2005-01-12T14:54:46Z")
> [@lieu](#): > > NPR reports this morning that there has now been a momentous increase in the number of reported events involving lasers targeting cockpits, so take your pick. Of course, it’s the new shark attack. Stupid gullible morons. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074/90 "2005-01-13T01:24:05Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > You know, doing all that “stuff” you’re talking about it. Riding a unicycle on a balance beam is easy on paper too. If you think glueing a laser to a telescope and popping the telescope onto a tripod is “nigh on impossible” then you must have an extraordinarily mundane life. Cripes I’m surprised that you even believe that aircraft can get off the ground. Fact: People have shined lasers into cockpits and it has at the least distracted the pilots, it has been done. Opinion: This is not a particularly useful terrorist tactic. I’m done here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nj-man-shines-laser-in-cockpit-blames-kid/283074.md?page=4)