Except for the writers of “the Lone Gunmen” and the FBI, of course.
Is no-one going to pit the FBI for using lie detector tests? Of all the stupidity involved that’s the bit that worries me most.
Just because the media says it’s true doesn’t mean it’s necessarily so. I’d wait to see what other facts emerge about this case. I’m waiting for the news story about whether or not these pilots were really blinded or whether they just saw a green flash or something and exaggerated what happened.
Also, the second aircraft was a helicopter. I’m talking about hitting a moving plane here.
News reports always state the maximum sentence for the charges. Assuming a first time offender, and that this is not proven to be malicious behaviour, it is extraordinarily unlikely he’ll get anywhere near 20 years (or 25 years and $500,000 according to AP
I really hope the FBI does not foolishly waste tax dollars pursuing charges under the Patriot Act and trying to send a (likely) foolish but not malicious man away for as long as possible. DUI killers don’t face such strict sentencing, and I consider getting behind a wheel after drinking malicious behaviour (legislatures and courts disagree, but what do they know).
Was anyone else irritated less by the fearmongering than the flagrant error?
When you’re a good distance away, and roughly in the path of the plane, it doesn’t move quickly across your field of view. That is what would make it difficult to target, not the raw speed.
This incident tells me that targeting a landing plane with a laser is not as difficult as many claim it is. I’ll listen to arguments about how it’s not really a viable way to attack, but anybody claiming that “you can’t hit a plane with a laser” is not making an argument at all, unless the authorities and pilots are lying and this laser didn’t hit the plane and helicopter, like they said it did.
No. I’m way past expecting the news to provide facts when it’s so much more profitable to provide fear and fluff.
To quote a character from a movie, “I hate that fuckin’ show.”
Uh… Yeah?
I really don’t understand all of the wondering about how it’s possible to shine a laser in a pilot’s eye from the ground. I had a red laser shine in my eye once. The beam came from a car going in the opposite direction down the interstate. If amateur astronomers typically use green lasers to point out specific stars in the sky, I don’t understand why it’s such a stretch to suppose they can be used to point at the front of a plane going by. Having the laser go into the cockpit probably requires some luck, and having the laser hit the pilots eye for a moment after that requires more – but if it’s your hobby, I can see someone being successful a few times. Sorry - but I just don’t see the big issue with this –
(DEATH) WHICH ONE OF YOU IS PETER GRIFFIN?
(Peter) <points at Chris> uhh…he is
(Heh, two references for the price of one 
)
The problem is distance. A car going down the interstate in the opposite direction is probably going to be much closer to you than any hypothetical laser terrorist is going to be to a landing airplane. (Stars, of course, are much farther away, but they’re also relatively stationary.)
Rather than go into all of the math again, I’ll just link to the beginning of this post from the GD thread on this topic.
We’ve gone over this in Great Debate recently, although seeing as the argument was equally inconclusive there, I won’t be bothered to dig out a link.
However, hitting an aircraft with a laser is just not that hard.
a) Airplane velocity is meaningless. They fly at a relatively constant velocity along a smooth path. You'd only have to move the laser pointer a fraction of a degree to keep up.
b) Distance is a factor. At great distances, the tremor in a normal hand would be enough to swing the beam a fairly large distance.
c) Countering this last bit, lasers, despite what most people think, do spread over distance. A laser beam at a distance of a couple of miles would be at least a few feet across. However, a powerful enough laser, including the modified green lasers would probably appear dazzlingly bright even at that range, provided the pilots looked at the beam. Enough so that a dark-adapted eye would probably retain afterimages.
d) Pointing at things is what lasers do. With the green lasers, particularly, you can see the laser form a line in the air. This would obviously make it much easier to correct your aim.
And, furthermore, it appears that it happens [a lot.](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002136444_laser31m.html)Look at it this way. If I can accurately point at a tiny spot in the sky – like a star – using a green laser - a laser that shows you where you’re pointing (if there is enough dust in the air green lasers produce a line to their target) - than using the trajectory of a plane to anticipate where in the sky it will be in a few seconds - I think I could hit one or come very close on my first effort. Sort of like shooting ducks on the wing – except, with a green laser, you can see where your bullets are going.
In fact, I really do see why this is more difficult that using a red laser (which does not produce the same line as a green laser) to hit someone in a moving car.
That last line should read — “I really do not see … than using a red laser …”
And I still say you’re comparing a moving target at very long distance to either (a) a moving target at a much shorter distance or (b) a stationary target at an astronomical distance. Neither comparison is meaningful.
I wouldn’t say velocity is meaningless: tracking a moving target is at least as difficult as acquiring the target in the first place, even if the motion of the target is smooth. And even if the motion of the target is smooth, the motion of the laser pointer would have to be just as smooth to match it. It’s the tremor in the hands all over again. Definitely harder than tracking a stationary target at any rate.
True, and this is probably why this stunt is possible at all. However, it also probably puts this stunt outside the possibility of causing any harm to the pilots. The beam won’t appear to be a foot wide to the pilots; it will appear to them as a point source of light. And a point source of light, even a dazzlingly bright one, is not going to be much of an impediment to landing the plane. If the laser was bright enough to injure the pilots, then maybe. But powerful enough to injure the pilots after spreading out from its original width to several feet across (reducing the intensity by the square of the ratio of the widths)? That’s some laser.
Well from practical experience I just don’t agree – it’s really more like the ‘hybrid experience’ I just described. 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. 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. In real life – I can hit a duck in flight even though that duck will radically change direction (unlike the plane), speed up or slow down (unlike the plane), and I can hit a duck even though I’m using one unseen spray (unlike the visible green laser line), and my spray isn’t a continuous mile long opportunity (unlike a green laser line). Why, — why is it near “impossible,” as some here are contending, to hit a planes cockpit considering this?
Are you suggesting they don’t?
Here’re some facts.
Large airliners have the capability to land themselves provided that they are landing at an airport that has the corresponding ground equipment. There are no airports in Australia that have that capability, so here at least, every landing is a manual one.
I’m quite sure that there are a significant number of airports in the States that do have the required ground equipment, however, pilots like flying aeroplanes and take-off and landing is about the only chance they get.
There is a very good chance that a large commerical aircraft is conducting a manual landing when you are watching it.
Now, when I’m landing, I can see the entire runway including the clear area in front of and behind it. Airports vary in how much land they have but it is not uncommon to have public access to the areas in front of and behind the runway, directly in line with the runway. When you are standing at one of these places the relative velocity of the aircraft is almost nil. Even standing off to one side, the relative velocity is still low.
Aircraft, when landing, follow a set 3 degree glide path to a predetermined aiming point on the runway. Some airfields may have a slightly different descent angle, but 3 degrees is the norm. Small private aircraft are fairly likely to be ignoring the glidepath or following it badly*, however, with larger aircraft flown by professional pilots, the aircraft will be following that profile very very accurately. Whats more, each aircraft will follow the exact same path down to the runway.
So we have pilots generally landing manually, a low relative velocity between the pointer and the aircraft, large aircraft accurately following a predetermined glidepath so that the pointer has approach after approach to look at and practise on. And you think this is going to be difficult?
Heck, you could get yourself a job as a maintenace guy on the approach lights and then it’d be pretty hard to miss the pilots eyes, they are going to be looking intently at where your “laser”** is set up.
*I don’t mean to say anything bad about private pilots, the glidepath is a lot less important in a smaller aircraft so it’s really not necessary to follow it, in fact the touchdown point for a commercial jet is well down the runway, a single engine Cessna can land at a much shorter point and be taxiing off the runway before it even gets to the jet’s touchdown zone.
** Obligitory Dr. Evil reference
I know what you mean. Though: http://www.snopes.com/legal/colander.htm. A test doesn’t have to work to be effective.
And I’ll add this ---- there’s NOTHING that says that a laser has to be held still in this situation. Again, all you’re doing is moving it across his eye – holding the laser still is NOT a requirement of that.
So you simply anticipate the spot where the pilots pupils will be in a few seconds and shine the light there. I imagine seeing someone’s eyes from two miles away is elementary stuff.
Talk about a parlor trick for the ages.