So, your stance is that the pilot who claimed he was temporarily blinded by the laser pointer is just a liar? Since it is impossible to blind a pilot from far away with a laser, the alternative must be true.
I think the media added in “blinded”. He probably said something to the effect of “yeah the light shined around the cockpit for a second”
Well, I guess things in Oz are indeed quite different. 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”.
I can go with this. I wouldn’t put it past the media to sensationalize this sort of thing. As more details come out, we’ll see what the truth is.
Sure World Eater that exactly what I said. Wait — that’s exactly what I never said. Shees - why not create a strawman with a little less brawn and a little more brain next go.
No one is saying the guy is aiming his laser at the pilot’s pupil for christ’s sake — what is being said is that he’s aiming at the front of the plane. Now from that we have people here who seem, for some unexplained reason, to think that it is “impossible” and the chance being “virtually zero.”
And in regards to your post just above — IF the light could have “shined around the cockpit for a second” – as you seem to think it could – why couldn’t it have just as easily “shined” in his eye for a second while he sits in that cockpit. — amazing.
Seems like there always has to be a conspiracy. So now we have, instead of a group of pilots who are lying about being blinded – it’s whole franking media — AND the pilots aren’t coming out to correct any of it ---- Right.
You said…
Most people would understand this to mean, “althought it’s moving, I can predict where it will be in a moment, and thus will point to that spot in advance”.
It’s the only way to blind someone
Impossible means it will never happen, while “virtually zero” implies an astronomically slim likelyhood of occurance. I’ll go with virtually zero.
We’re talking about terrorists bringing down planes with these things, not momentarily annoying pilots like a fruitfly.
Shine light in eyes, pilot exclaims “DEAR GOD NO!”, clutches eyes in agony, plane nosedives into runway? Ain’t going to happen, media please stop covering this absurd scenario and move on.
Right. I think the final summation is that, no matter if it can be done or not, the plane is not going to instantly fall out of the sky and burst into flames if the pilot sees a laser.
I imagine it would be something more alone the lines of “Oh, a laser”, ::avoids looking directly at it and keeps flying normally.::
Since I really don’t know what else to say I just add this –
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002115220_ndig10.html
And this –
Bolding - is of course - all mine. Now ------- I’m out’a here ----
How many fatalities resulted from those incidents?
Sure I’ll wait…
A concentrated beam of light doesn’t have to lock on to a pilot’s pupils and physically sear his retinas for this to be a distraction.
The duration of contact doesn’t have to be lengthy either. It’s not like you have to track his pupil with precision. Paint a cockpit with a sweeping, jiggly motion and at some point you may hit it. There. It’s done.
It matters not that the perpetrator isn’t a swarthy, dark haired Middle Eastern muslim. It’s just as bad when a WASPish idiot performs the act. Just because it’s not Al Quaeda doesn’t make it any less serious.
Who in the heck is advocating the notion that distracting a pilot in any way, shape or form while he’s trying to land is acceptable behavior? People are intentionally fucking with pilots heads and that potentially puts the life of every person on board, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, in a more dangerous predicament. When did this become acceptable behaviour?
“How many fatalities resulted from those incidents?”
What the fuck, World Eater. You’ll ignore the complaints of numerous pilots and require someone to die before you’ll realize the seriousness of this?
What – wait on a fatality or for some common sense?
Since I don’t have any lasers of my own to experiment with…
A pilot being “temporarily blinded” could just mean that his night vision is blown and he can’t see around outside the plane (or possibly his instruments) for a moment or two. Does the laser have to actually hit the pupil of his eye for this to happen? The story referenced by the OP referred to the pilot and copilot being blinded. Could diffraction from the curved windshield of the plane scatter enough light in their eyes to temporarily kill their night vision, or would it just give the windshield a happy glow?
At which point as Cisco aptly put it, the pilot says “Oh, a laser”, then avoids looking directly at it and keeps flying normally
The media is having a field day saying terrorists could use this to bring down jets. I could care less whether the terrorists are “white”, “black”, “brown”, “green”, etc
Not me, I’m only pointing out the futility of this laser method.
If the media was saying a few random knuckleheads are out being fucking with pilots that’s one thing. Last I saw it was more “TERRORISTS ARE PLOTTING TO BRING DOWN PLANES BY BLINDING PILOTS WITH LASERS!”
I guess that’s the point. As a terrorist tactic I don’t find this serious. Sounds like some FBI schmuck who reads too much Tom Clancy, and doesn’t have actual threats to pursue.
How long have cheap laser pointers been available? Are we to believe that shining lasers into airplane cockpits has only been an issue since 9/11?
Remember the months before 9/11? It was dubbed the ‘summer of the shark’ in the media, and all you heard about were shark attacks and shark sitings. The media blew it out of proportion because there were no more instances of shark attacks in that summer than any other year - they just had nothing else to monger fear with.
I’ll WAG that there have probably been lasers pointed at planes for several years, but it had never been news worthy. At least not until there was a slow news day and the chance to work another terrorism angle.
I doubt that it is necessary to have the actual beam of the laser get anywhere near the pupil to cause a problem from the pilot. At night, with their eyes adjusted to the dark, with all of the other lights in the cabin being an eye-soothing dim red, the laser just needs to brightly illuminate anything in the cabin to cause a problem. Look at this picture . . . The “splash” of the laser light is what would cause the problem – heck, turning on a 50 watt bulb can temporarily blind a person if their eyes are dark adjusted. Hitting the pupil directly would be an even bigger problem, but not necessary.
Think about that, and then read the copy at Wicked Laser: "This laser will speak for itself. At 10 times the power of our Basic Laser, this laser cannot be described by words. Absolutely no smoke or fog is required to see this beam in its kryptonite-ray intensity. The beam is so bright that it is often referred to as the “Light Saber.” This is perfect for bird control, click here to read more. Use with extreme caution, as people miles away will be able to see the beam and its origin. Professional use only. " That’s for their 40-50 mW version. The 50-60 mW version is so popular that it is on backorder!
Exactly it’s called the availability heuristic. A good definition is here
The media blows up an incident of a pilot being “blinded” (most likely the media’s word), and all of the sudden taking out planes with lasers is tEh new hotness.
You either misunderstood or were misled.
Actually, it’s just in the past year or two that the insanely bright green lasers have become affordable. And the “modding” of the lasers to achieve even more power seems to also be a recent phenomenon.
At least one of the stories cited here specifically refers to green lasers.
My personal guess is that most of these cases are yahoos with a new toy not thinking very clearly about the possible consequences of their actions.
An excellent question, sir. Who the heck is advocating that?
No, really. Who? Name one person in this thread who’s advocating that. ONE.