Getting found and arrested is one of the better outcomes.
There are cases where military aircraft pointed their lasers (likely invisible IR lasers) at photographers. It's unclear if this was intentional and what kind of laser (e.g. rangefinder or designator) it was, but the laser likely wasn't meant as a weapons system but still fried the camera, with visible scorch marks.
I can't imagine eyes faring much better than the sensor if hit.
They'd fare poorly, but for different reasons. Digital cameras can be vulnerable to IR lasers because their sensors are sensitive to infrared light. Human retinas aren't sensitive to IR, which ironically makes IR lasers more dangerous than visible ones, since they don't trigger the blink reflex which would otherwise limit the damage to the eyes.
Cameras are very sensitive to lasers, there are lots of reported instances where a camera was damaged by e.g. a light show at a concert, even though it's presumably harmless to the human concert-goers[1]. So I don't think the fact that the camera was damaged would necessarily mean that it was dangerous to eyes.
As a controls engineer who deals with CDRH regulations for laser sensors, laser engravers, and and laser cutters on a regular basis, the crap that some light shows get away with is criminal.
The lasers used in light shows are only allowed because they're moving; if you looked directly down the beam while it held still your blink reflex would not save your vision. Fortunately, you've got natural liquid cooling: your cornea is bathed in tears and your retina is surrounded by fluid-filled tissues, so there's a safety window of a few milliseconds while the laser pans across your eyeball too fast to cause dangerous temperature rise. If the laser beam slows down - if the encoders/resolvers on the galvanometers register insufficient change in the mirror angles - the controller will shut off the laser.
I don't have sufficient trust in my own professional, methodical, high-quality work using top dollar equipment to open up a machine without safety eyewear and lock out/tag out procedures; I have even less trust in products for the lower-margin, faster-paced entertainment industry. On top of that, it would not surprise me if a camera sensor has slightly less heatsinking compared to human eyeballs...but the fact that the safety margin is so thin that cameras can be damaged makes me not want to go to a light show!
There are professional standards. Show lasers are very definitely NOT harmless. I have mild but permanent retina burns from a home-made 40mW projector I put together in the 2000s.
Modern show lasers are more likely to be around 1W for smaller events, around 20W for stadiums and up to 100W for the biggest outdoor events. Getting the beam from any of those in your eye will blind you almost instantly.
So audience scanning is carefully calibrated. The lasers are set up either to scan balconies and ceilings, to move at a certain velocity to minimise dwell time, to lose most of their brightness below a certain height - or all of the above.
Professional shows require a "variance" - basically regulation and associated paperwork - to make sure no one is hurt.
Of course any idiot can buy a 1W show laser for less than $1k now, but the US has quite strict legal requirements for public use, and anyone who causes serious eye damage is potentially on the hook for a law suit and bankruptcy.
Not just cameras, apparently. Recently I was watching a movie at some small cinema, and there was a dim vertical green stripe on the left side of the screen. I got curious and asked the projector guy after the movie. His answer was "some dumbass flashed a laser pointer right into the lens, burning an entire pixel column".
Many countries have signed the UN protocol that says they will not use laser weapons on people.
The whole thing is a bit of a scam though and the crew on tanks and similar vehicles are taught to use lasers offensively on people even though the lasers are being classified for "range finding" or similar. So in practice offensive lasers are part of modern warfare.
I get that it's kind of a funny, jokey thing that someone lased a military aircraft and it used a Wescam E/O sensor turret to track down the suspect, but this article gets a bit goofy talking about the "high target location accuracy and georeferencing" and "In this situation, the key for the crew is the coordination between the cockpit and the MX-20 operator in the back to “find and fix” the target. But this is something ATL2 crews routinely train for."
The reality is that your average police helicopter is probably better equipped to do this: It has high-zoom visible light/thermal sensors, with georeferencing to get exact lat/lon. Additionally, it probably has something along the lines of the Churchill/Shotover ARS system[1][2] that gives operators an overlay with street names, addresses, etc. Even news helicopters in the U.S. are equipped with those.
Yes, sounds like it. MK (pronounced "mark") is an American military prefix meaning "version". MK-1 is version 1, MK-2 is version 2, etc.
"MK-1" is a common military joke/term meaning the human eye, as opposed to other electrical-optical sensors that might be fitted to an upgraded aircraft.
Cannot say, but many years ago (Italy, in constructions/earth moving industry) the Fiat-Allis track loaders were ubiquitous, with model names (depending on size/weight) like FL-4, FL-9, FL-10, etc. and it was a common joke, to call FL-1 (hand) shovels.
I guess it is the kind of thing that is worldwide or (re-) discovered independently everywhere.
It may surprise you to discover that we military drones have emotions, goals, families, and hobbies. Occasionally we're also programmed to chuckle, snort, and guffaw to fool the unsuspecting into thinking we're actually real humans.
A bit too dramatic, no? If you could actually crash a plane with a laser there would 1000s of such attempts. In reality they just had to turn around and maybe let autopilot land it.
Same with drones - there hasn’t been a single accident yet people so overreact.
Who are those people? Some actual/suspected foreign agents trying to interfere with the military air traffic/impact morale of the aircrews? Or mere hooligans?
It's overwhelmingly likely to be hooligans. Pointing a (visible) laser pointer is at a pilot is a great way of pissing them off, and is dangerous, but fundamentally isn't a great military weapon. Many military nations have signed the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons [1] which explicitly forbids attacks of this sort. If you were a rouge state, doing this with a far IR CO2 laser is (a) more likely to have a "military effect" (big bang) and (b) harder to trace and not visible (think Cuba syndrome).
For what it's worth, this is a good application of military technology with no loss of life. Firing lasers at aeroplanes is a Bad Thing™.
Yeah, using blinding weapons on planes in a war scenario isn't very viable, treaty or not. Arguably blinding weapons could be helpful against infantry or armor, but not really against aircraft. If you're close enough to be able to shine a laser at an aircraft you're also more than close enough to fire a missile at it. Far more likely to have lethal effects, better range, plus you don't have to worry about your weapon being defeated by fog (to a degree if you're using IR-guided missiles). This is really limited to these "gray zone" conflicts in a non-wartime environment, and possibly when waging guerrilla warfare.
On a more serious note, the Bretagne independence movement used to be quite strong (relatively speaking) until the mid- to late-1990s, I can see some people still not being happy with the Paris administration sending airplanes upon their lands.
People who would not really know a laser would have such a long range. I guess people just do this because they don't know it's dangerous.
I admit doing it once when I was a kid, but for like 10 seconds, but you never really know if you are pointing exactly at the aircraft, since it's very far away. I learned years ago that I did something illegal...
Of course, people who got caught are pointing those lasers long enough for those camera to spot them.
I guess that a loooot of people try this, but don't do it long enough, so they never get caught, and also since most aircrafts have no way to find who did it.
What is it about six months that seems like it's an appropriate sentence?
I infer that you mean it's better that 1-3 years or something worse.
In this case (the article didn't mention the individual's circumstances) six months will most likely have severe consequences to things like employment/education/child-care. These will have negative effects on the rest of the community in all likelyhood.
As it sounds like no-one was harmed, would a fine, probation, and/or some form of required community service potentially have better overall outcomes?
I think punishments need to have enough teeth to deter.
Six months seems like it could be enough to deter without it unnecessarily keeping someone who is normally harmless incarcerated. I'm not too dug-in on this point though, it really depends on how risky shooting a laser at an aircraft really is.
If someone fired a gun into a crowd, but no one was harmed, should that just be a fine? Why would doing something dangerous that could possibly damage a pilots eyes not be similar? Enough pilots have suffered eye damage (google it) from idiots with lasers.
In the US, a first time DUI with no one injured can get you 6 months jail in many states (some higher, some lower). This seems about the same.
Maybe penalties are decided including factors such as possible outcomes for dangerous behavior and as a deterrence to others?
6mo in prison for dicking around with a laser pointer is right up there with sending the swat team to break up a bunch of teenagers partying. People routinely don't even get 6mo for crimes with a victim (on their first offense).
For nuisance behavior like this a bunch of community service would teaches the lesson just as well and not waste as many tax dollars.
Edit: FFS people, seriously? It's the aerial equivalent of some hooligan doing donuts in the middle of an intersection.
Yes, you can always come up with some appeal to emotion crap but the fact of the matter is that while the behavior was reckless and negligent nobody was harmed and there was no victim, the only transgression was a temporary risk of harm.
There's a very big difference between being a reckless nuisance and actually harming anyone or actually causing harm. Results matter. This is enshrined in statute all over the world (and in case law for common law jurisdictions). I hope all you people are smart enough to get out of jury duty.
It's not "dicking around with a laser pointer". Actions have consequences. Blinding pilots and causing a plane crash is not really going to be classed as "dicking around" is it?
This doesn't qualify as nuisance behavior. The risks are very real, particularly with civilian/LEO aircraft which don't have the training (and possible countermeasures) that a military pilot would.
For offenses where the risk of getting caught is very low, you need to make the punishments stiff, otherwise the expected value of the punishment is near-zero.
Readit News
There are cases where military aircraft pointed their lasers (likely invisible IR lasers) at photographers. It's unclear if this was intentional and what kind of laser (e.g. rangefinder or designator) it was, but the laser likely wasn't meant as a weapons system but still fried the camera, with visible scorch marks.
I can't imagine eyes faring much better than the sensor if hit.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2021/08/02/sony-officially-warns-that-...
The lasers used in light shows are only allowed because they're moving; if you looked directly down the beam while it held still your blink reflex would not save your vision. Fortunately, you've got natural liquid cooling: your cornea is bathed in tears and your retina is surrounded by fluid-filled tissues, so there's a safety window of a few milliseconds while the laser pans across your eyeball too fast to cause dangerous temperature rise. If the laser beam slows down - if the encoders/resolvers on the galvanometers register insufficient change in the mirror angles - the controller will shut off the laser.
I don't have sufficient trust in my own professional, methodical, high-quality work using top dollar equipment to open up a machine without safety eyewear and lock out/tag out procedures; I have even less trust in products for the lower-margin, faster-paced entertainment industry. On top of that, it would not surprise me if a camera sensor has slightly less heatsinking compared to human eyeballs...but the fact that the safety margin is so thin that cameras can be damaged makes me not want to go to a light show!
Modern show lasers are more likely to be around 1W for smaller events, around 20W for stadiums and up to 100W for the biggest outdoor events. Getting the beam from any of those in your eye will blind you almost instantly.
So audience scanning is carefully calibrated. The lasers are set up either to scan balconies and ceilings, to move at a certain velocity to minimise dwell time, to lose most of their brightness below a certain height - or all of the above.
Professional shows require a "variance" - basically regulation and associated paperwork - to make sure no one is hurt.
Of course any idiot can buy a 1W show laser for less than $1k now, but the US has quite strict legal requirements for public use, and anyone who causes serious eye damage is potentially on the hook for a law suit and bankruptcy.
The reality is that your average police helicopter is probably better equipped to do this: It has high-zoom visible light/thermal sensors, with georeferencing to get exact lat/lon. Additionally, it probably has something along the lines of the Churchill/Shotover ARS system[1][2] that gives operators an overlay with street names, addresses, etc. Even news helicopters in the U.S. are equipped with those.
How pilots help police track down laser-strike suspects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1xdgE4xz-o
This is a good demonstration of a police helicopter with high-res thermal imagery tracking down someone with a laser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaOhD2r-Y8c
[1] https://shotover.com/products/ars [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumcjbVzzLE
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_I_Eyeball
For some reason this feels like distinctively American humor. Non?
"MK-1" is a common military joke/term meaning the human eye, as opposed to other electrical-optical sensors that might be fitted to an upgraded aircraft.
I guess it is the kind of thing that is worldwide or (re-) discovered independently everywhere.
> the “sky sailors” (as naval aircrews are called in the French Navy)
What was the best outcome the person expected? To crash an airplane full of people?
A bit too dramatic, no? If you could actually crash a plane with a laser there would 1000s of such attempts. In reality they just had to turn around and maybe let autopilot land it.
Same with drones - there hasn’t been a single accident yet people so overreact.
For what it's worth, this is a good application of military technology with no loss of life. Firing lasers at aeroplanes is a Bad Thing™.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-4-blinding-las...
Maybe regular posters to /r/unexpectedgwennhadu/?
On a more serious note, the Bretagne independence movement used to be quite strong (relatively speaking) until the mid- to late-1990s, I can see some people still not being happy with the Paris administration sending airplanes upon their lands.
I admit doing it once when I was a kid, but for like 10 seconds, but you never really know if you are pointing exactly at the aircraft, since it's very far away. I learned years ago that I did something illegal...
Of course, people who got caught are pointing those lasers long enough for those camera to spot them.
I guess that a loooot of people try this, but don't do it long enough, so they never get caught, and also since most aircrafts have no way to find who did it.
I infer that you mean it's better that 1-3 years or something worse.
In this case (the article didn't mention the individual's circumstances) six months will most likely have severe consequences to things like employment/education/child-care. These will have negative effects on the rest of the community in all likelyhood.
As it sounds like no-one was harmed, would a fine, probation, and/or some form of required community service potentially have better overall outcomes?
Six months seems like it could be enough to deter without it unnecessarily keeping someone who is normally harmless incarcerated. I'm not too dug-in on this point though, it really depends on how risky shooting a laser at an aircraft really is.
In the US, a first time DUI with no one injured can get you 6 months jail in many states (some higher, some lower). This seems about the same.
Maybe penalties are decided including factors such as possible outcomes for dangerous behavior and as a deterrence to others?
Deleted Comment
For nuisance behavior like this a bunch of community service would teaches the lesson just as well and not waste as many tax dollars.
Edit: FFS people, seriously? It's the aerial equivalent of some hooligan doing donuts in the middle of an intersection.
Yes, you can always come up with some appeal to emotion crap but the fact of the matter is that while the behavior was reckless and negligent nobody was harmed and there was no victim, the only transgression was a temporary risk of harm.
There's a very big difference between being a reckless nuisance and actually harming anyone or actually causing harm. Results matter. This is enshrined in statute all over the world (and in case law for common law jurisdictions). I hope all you people are smart enough to get out of jury duty.
This doesn't qualify as nuisance behavior. The risks are very real, particularly with civilian/LEO aircraft which don't have the training (and possible countermeasures) that a military pilot would.
Dead Comment