EWR 11 Laser Attacks In One Night

American Flight 348 was at 9,000 feet, headed to LaGuardia Airport.

Two flights were over Monmouth County. Republic Airlines 4632 was at 9,000 feet, bound for Pittsburgh and United 330 was at 9,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Lasered at 9,000'!? Holy crap. This can't just be some kid with a laser and pointing it at a plane can it? Low, on final I can understand, but what kind of laser is capable of accurately hitting a flight deck at 9,000'?
 
Mark815 said:
Lasered at 9,000'!? Holy crap. This can't just be some kid with a laser and pointing it at a plane can it? Low, on final I can understand, but what kind of laser is capable of accurately hitting a flight deck at 9,000'?
Click to expand...

You can certainly be hit up there. A 200mW laser can be distractedly visible at that altitude. It won't do any damage but it's certainly noticeable.
 
Who knew that I shoulda kept these that I was issued for the Iraq invasion of 2003.

$_12.JPG
 
BobDDuck said:
You can certainly be hit up there. A 200mW laser can be distractedly visible at that altitude. It won't do any damage but it's certainly noticeable.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly impressed that they could even hit something so specific like the front of the plane at that distance.
 
Mark815 said:
I'm honestly impressed that they could even hit something so specific like the front of the plane at that distance.
Click to expand...

The trick here is to know what the mil-dispersion of the laser is. The spot size at range may be large enough that it would cover 1/3 of the overall fuselage, including the cockpit.
 
The short term blindness and disorientation are the most dangerous factors related to this.

I got "hit" with a laser at 5miles from the airport, flying a Grumman at night. The person must've had a scope to a accurately hit the window multiple times while on approach. It was disorienting and it made it difficult to focus my vision.

Not if they think it's fun and games, but during critical phases of flight it could easily lead to an accident. I'm surprised it hasn't already
 
Acrofox said:
I was really hoping for something a bit more solid than press releases, which are extremely anecdotal.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Fox. While I can understand the severity and concern for lasers, as soon as the media starts talking about the health of pilots and our eyes they always seem to go overboard. Last news article I read about a laser attack said a pilot had to "call in sick" the next day and couldn't resume his trip because he thought he had permanent eye damage... at the end of the article they just said the doctors didn't find anything.

Seems like this is going to be tough to regulate. Especially if TSA is in charge? I would imagine it'd be easier to just ban them all together...what is the serious practicality for these high powered lasers anyways? Not trying to be ignorant either. I really am curious...
 
tcco94 said:
Seems like this is going to be tough to regulate. Especially if TSA is in charge? I would imagine it'd be easier to just ban them all together...what is the serious practicality for these high powered lasers anyways? Not trying to be ignorant either. I really am curious...
Click to expand...

Regulate what?
 
tcco94 said:
Lasers? What else are we talking about?

That's why I asked the practicality of these?....and are these power lasers legal for civilians? Plenty of people claim they're "illegal"...but I am asking...
Click to expand...

Answering questions with questions? I didn't really see that implied.
 
n57flyguy said:
Answering questions with questions? I didn't really see that implied.
Click to expand...
My comments about regulation were just me thinking out loud, which triggered the what are the practicality of these?

I'm not going to just say "BAN THEM" if they actually have real use.
 
Yes, they do have a use in astronomy. But even if they didn't, we don't (or at least shouldn't) ban an abused item merely because someone else has no "use" for it. That argument is used repeatedly in calls to ban everything from firearms, to high-performance sports cars, to three-ton SUVs, to remotely operated aerial devices (a.k.a., "drones"), to even meat.
 
Last edited:
RDoug said:
Yes, they do have a use in astronomy. But even if they didn't, we don't (or at least shouldn't) ban an abused item merely because someone else has no "use" for it. That argument is used repeatedly in calls to ban everything from firearms, to high-performance sports cars, to three-ton SUVs, to remotely operated aerial devices (a.k.a., "drones"), to even meat.
Click to expand...
Don't forget motorcycles, homebuilt/experimental aircraft and helicopters. What needs to be addressed is individual responsibility.
 
tcco94 said:
My comments about regulation were just me thinking out loud, which triggered the what are the practicality of these?

I'm not going to just say "BAN THEM" if they actually have real use.
Click to expand...

No, don't regulate them, at all is my personal belief. That won't fix the societal issue of the violation of law put into place for an offense all ready.

I would like to see more of this, though where does the money come from would be the biggest question of a cost benefit:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/FBI-document-shows-alleged-criminal-was-caught-229210561.html
 
RDoug said:
Yes, they do have a use in astronomy. But even if they didn't, we don't (or at least shouldn't) ban an abused item merely because someone else has no "use" for it. That argument is used repeatedly in calls to ban everything from firearms, to high-performance sports cars, to three-ton SUVs, to remotely operated aerial devices (a.k.a., "drones"), to even meat.
Click to expand...
I was never arguing to ban them. Regulate was the only thing I was trying to say...just like how firearms are.

It's like you say one word around here and all the previous posts with your ideas are irrelevant because everyone twists and turns your words. I'm not in support of some communism where we ban things (just like you said), but kids and even some adults shouldn't have the power of these lasers....just like they aren't allowed to have guns and cars etc. That's all I was trying to argue was it might be tough to regulate something like that. My "ban them" quote wasn't my idea, just an example of what I was referring too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top