Official: No laser, terrorism link

CNN ^ | January 3, 2005

[Reader of news]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI investigation into recent incidents involving laser beams aimed at aircraft has found no link to terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security's transportation security chief said Monday.

"There's not any evidence that these lasers are being used by terrorists," said Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary of border and transportation security. "The FBI certainly continues to investigate and look at these fact scenarios. It's also a safety issue that the Department of Transportation would certainly want to look at."

The FBI is investigating eight incidents since Christmas involving lasers -- or lights believed to be lasers -- directed at various aircraft across the nation, including incidents in the District of Columbia, Ohio, Colorado and New Jersey. All of the pilots were able to land without incident.

[newgeezer]

I told everyone it was just kids and adults.

As opposed to what, infants? House pets? Droids? ;O)

[exhaustedmomma]

Laser injures Delta pilot's eye: September 29, 2004

snip
Officials were unsure of the source of the laser and could not determine whether the exposure was deliberate or accidental.

John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, said commercial pilots have been exposed to laser illumination.

"The Air Line Pilots Association has received reports in the past of incidents where lasers penetrated cockpits and, in at least one case, caused injury," Mr. Mazor said.

Several years ago, a pilot flying into a Western airport was hit by a light from a laser light show. The causes of the other incidents are not known, he said.

Asked whether a laser aimed at pilots could cause a plane to crash, Mr. Mazor said: "I think that's highly improbable. In every case in the past, the flights landed safely."

Military personnel also have suffered eye damage from laser illumination.

In one case, Naval Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly and Canadian helicopter pilot Capt. Pat Barnes suffered eye injuries hours after an aerial surveillance mission to photograph a Russian merchant ship that had been shadowing the ballistic-missile submarine USS Ohio in Washington state's Strait of Juan de Fuca.

The Navy recently turned down an appeal from the Defense Department inspector general to award Cmdr. Daly a Purple Heart for the incident. Cmdr. Daly, who retired from the service last year, continues to suffer eye pain and deteriorating vision.

During congressional testimony in 1999, he warned of laser threats to pilots.

"Numerous documented cases regarding the use of lasers against aircraft, civilians and military personnel exist, as well as does an all-too-lengthy list of the injuries that have resulted from the accidental and intentional misuse of these devices," Cmdr. Daly told a House Armed Services subcommittee.

[backhoe]

Thanks- I'll save the link.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

There's no evidence that's it's "teenage pranksters" either, but that doesn't keep them from suggesting it every time they open their mouths.

[Straight Vermonter]

I told everyone it was just kids and adults.

As opposed to what, monkeys and zebras? LOL

[exhaustedmomma]

Here are a couple other related articles:

Michelle Malkin points her readers to this odd Washington Times story about a pilot whose retina was burned by in-flight exposure to a laser--- Updates included.

Can Lasers Really Bring Down Planes? Actually, yes.

snip
The Chinese-made ZM-87 is perhaps the best known of these blinding weapons, also known as laser dazzlers. It was designed to foil night-vision equipment and burn the retinas of enemy troops and has an effective range of up to 10 kilometers. The device is usually mounted on tanks, though there are reports that it's been added to the decks of naval vessels, too. China North Industries Corporation, better known as Norinco, has been manufacturing and selling the ZM-87 since roughly 1995.

The Chinese are not the only military power curious about the offensive capabilities of lasers. The Russians are reputed to have developed a similar dazzler, which may have been involved in a 1997 incident in which a U.S. Naval intelligence officer claims his eyesight was permanently damaged during a helicopter mission in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. (Click here for the latest on that controversial saga, which has become a minor cause célèbre.) The United States has also tinkered with dazzlers of its own, though its focus is apparently more on short-range disruptors that can be attached to rifles.

[backhoe]

Saved those, too- thanks. Something is going on.

[babygene]

You said something about actual knowledge of the weapon...

"An industrial laser mounted on a good hobby telescope with motor tracking could paint a moving target all day."

You make it sound easy, but it's not. Our military today has that capability with the millions we spend on arms, but most countries do not.

You can "track" a star or planet wtith a $400 computerized telescope because it's position and speed is predictable.

For unpredictable objects, you need positive feedback in your servo system. This is where it gets difficult and expensive. And without spending millions on a fire control system it gets impossible.

[exhaustedmomma]

You are welcome! bookmarked this thread! Thank you for all the work you do!

Too coincidental, IMO. Glad to see you collecting these stories!

[Political Junkie Too]

Would they actually admit it if there were a link, or would they stay quiet about it? Of course they are going to say that there's no link.

-PJ

[Bigturbowski]

They gotta scare us one way or another... about how unsafe we are in between the "failing" war in Iraq. Without fear the MSM has nothing to do but forge documents to invent a scandal.

[Politically Correct]

For unpredictable objects, you need positive feedback in your servo system. This is where it gets difficult and expensive. And without spending millions on a fire control system it gets impossible.

What you seem to be ignoring is that a plane on final approach is in fact very predictable. And if you as a terrorist are lined up with the runway the plane will have very little relative motion and would be very easy to "track" without spending millions.

That said, I still doubt that there are in fact terrorists attempting this.

[babygene]

"What you seem to be ignoring is that a plane on final approach is in fact very predictable."

Trust me... As a pilot, I can tell you that final approach is NOT predictable. (except within 300 feet or so) Neither is it's speed. Your target in this case is about a square yard or so, just to hit the windshield.

It is actually the least predictable time of the flight, as you are on manual control and constantly making adjustments.


I repeat, this task is not trivial if you are trying to use a servo system.

[Fredgoblu]

You might want to have actual knowledge of the weapon before you spend too much time thinking about it.

Fair enough. Let's talk.

For the laser to be effective, you've got to hit the pilot in the eye. I just took a little office study, and I could resolve an eyeball...not the pupil, mind you, just the eye at about 50-60 feet. To resolve that same eye at the 3000 foot elevation of the latest report (assuming a maximum angle of 45 degrees before the pilots head is obscured by the plane itself gives us a minimum range of 4200 feet)...I'd need a minimum magnification of about 70x. This magnification is reasonable...but we're really beyond hobbyist telescopes now. Typical hobbyist scopes have focal lengths in the 600-1000mm range, and eyepieces that are only decent to the 20-40mm range, so they're practically limited to about 40-50x.

But, to be reasonable, let's just say it's a high-end hobbist telescope that gets us there.

Okay, now we need to mount the scope. High end telescopes come with high-end Equatorial mounts...one axis is fixed on a point in space, and the other axis rotates around it. they're designed to point at the north star and allow you to track your object by changing only one axis. Practically speaking, to be able to motorize this type mount, you'd need to fix on a point in space that was precisely perpendicular to the airplanes line of decent, and also it's line of approach. You'd need to be at the very end of the runway, and, even then, lining up your fixed axis would be a challenge.

So, since that's tough, assume we'll just use an Alt-Azimuth mount...horizontal and vertical controls...period. We won't find a significant enough mount of this type...these are lightweight,. low-end mounts. So, we'd have to hand-craft it to get one to suit our requirements for precision. Let's assume it can be done.

We've got all that, but we still don't have a motorized drive. And, in the end, I'm not sure what good it would do. To accurately follow an 1/2 inch target at 3000 feet out and 3000 feet up, we'd need a drive that was precise to the nearest 4/1000's of a degree. We're talking some serious gear reduction here...again, wayyyy beyond that alt-az mount we built.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume it all works.

Now, what happens if the wind blows? What happens if you accidentally brush the eyepiece while you're focusing on that target? What happens if the pilot sneezes? Turbulence? Can't see the pilot through the window?

Bottom line, this proposition is beyond most hobbyists, and probably beyond most terrorists.

On the other hand, take your .50 caliber Barrett. Now, all of a sudden, your target's not a 1/2 inch dot, but rather 4' tall (he's seated) x 1-1/2' wide. If I'm lined up with the end of the runway--as I needed to do for the telescope, anyway--we pretty much limited the plane's motion to one dimension (with lateral adjustments required for slewing of the plane, of course). And, we limited it to a fairly slow motion, at that. Yeah, we have atmospheric uncertainties, but as we learned above, a little twitch throws off the effect of the laser, too.

With a 2 mile destructive range on the weapon, and (as we learned in a post on here today) sniper accuracy at 1000 yards, I've got to believe that this would be a much easier, much more likely proposition than the laser.

Most importantly, though the gun is much more likely to cause harm if we miss the primary target. Heck, I don't need to hit the pilot...I'd cause problems if I hit just about anything in that cockpit or any of the control surfaces of the plane. Heck, a single bullet through the fuselage could put an airline out of business c/o lost ridership.

So, needless to say, I beg to differ.

[TeleStraightShooter]

has found no link to terrorism

Ok, so they say they did not find a link.

They did not say one does not exist.

[Politically Correct]

For the laser to be effective, you've got to hit the pilot in the eye.

True.......
but your assumption that to disable the pilot requires targeting the eye is not warranted.
All you have to do is "paint" the windshield.
You would dazzle and blind the pilot in less than 1/10 sec if the beam (diffused somewhat by air and windshield) just happens to cross near his eyes.

Several watts of laser light entering the cockpit in even a random way would be devastating.

[TeleStraightShooter]

I am curious, have you ever shot @ anything over a 1/2 mile away? and one that is moving?
Major problem with taking potshots @ an airliner with a .50 is the shooter's position would shortly be compromised by the rifle shot.

Lasers are a bit quieter.
IIRC, the "dazzler" weapons described up-thread cover a area, several yards wide.

[WmDonovan]

Surely much of this involves copycat kids who got lasers for Christmas and have too much time on their hands.

However, I remember some incidents in the past where the Russians shot lasers at US fighter pilots. At least one suffered permanent eye damage. We all know that terrorists have sought weaponry from the Russians. Such a weapon would seem attractive to them, although there would be a big difference in effectiveness between a single seat fighter plane and an airliner that has a copilot. Perhaps some Russian scientist sold some terror group a simple laser for some absurd amount of money. Not the first time a Russian got wealthy by selling junk to a Religion of Peace(TM) practitioner. A small laser strapped to a rifle stock, perhaps with a scope too, could zero in on a lighted cockpit at night. If it is anything more than a prank this would be one possible explanation.

As far as the laser being used with a large caliber (e.g., 50BMG) rile, I wouldn't be too worried. Yes, a 50BMG, or even a 30-06 would do damage. The problem though is trajectory. A laser goes in straight lines, rifle bullets don't. There would be many feet of drop at that range, and shooting at a fast moving target would require a lot of lead. Shooting at a high angle would further complicate things. People who use lasers with guns use them with pistols for close range shooting where trajectory is meaningless.

[babygene]

"You would dazzle and blind the pilot in less than 1/10 sec if the beam (diffused somewhat by air and windshield) just happens to cross near his eyes."

The problem is, that if a plane moving 300 MPH, in 1/10 of a second it has moved 1760 feet. Try tracking that...