Military Green Laser Pointer

[[email protected]]

This extremely powerful Green Laser Pointer is visible over 2 miles
away. Its perfect for pointing at starts and planets. The green beam is
actually visible through the air.

www.GreenLazer.com

[Greasy Rider© @invalid.com]

On 12 Apr 2005 10:43:04 -0700, postulated
:
>This extremely powerful Green Laser Pointer is visible over 2 miles
>away. Its perfect for pointing at starts and planets. The green beam is
>actually visible through the air.

....and just why would someone want to point a laser at a " start"?

Those things can cause temporary blindness and should be banned.

[Noah Little]

Greasy Rider© @invalid.com wrote:
>
> Those things can cause temporary blindness and should be banned.

They also have the reported ability to be directed, hand-held, into the
cockpits of flying aircraft for seconds at a time.

(And anyone who believes that should try holding the dot on a leaf a
quarter mile away to see how well they do.)

[Cockpit Colin]

Hysteria aside for just a moment, have a read of ...

http://www.equipped.org/lasers_airliners.htm


"Noah Little" > wrote in message
...
> Greasy Rider© @invalid.com wrote:
> >
> > Those things can cause temporary blindness and should be banned.
>
> They also have the reported ability to be directed, hand-held, into the
> cockpits of flying aircraft for seconds at a time.
>
> (And anyone who believes that should try holding the dot on a leaf a
> quarter mile away to see how well they do.)

[Gord Beaman]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:

>Hysteria aside for just a moment, have a read of ...
>
>http://www.equipped.org/lasers_airliners.htm
>
Interesting and reasonable...thanks...

--

--Gord
(use gordon in email)

"Without detonation, your car won't
move. That's what makes engines go".

"In my car, the high octane fuel detonates
better than the lower octane grades.
Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION".

-Burnore.

[Cockpit Colin]

For what it's worth, I own one of the green variety - it's great for
pointing out starts etc at night.

My feeling is that if someone shined in the cockpit from (at least) 1 or 2
miles away, ...

(a) It would give me a bit of a fright - be damned annoying, but not
damaging - possibly causing a precautionary go-around at worst.

(b) Being that the beam is visable, it should be possible to give a
pretty accurate description of where it came from.

(c) Unless you mounted it mechanically, it would be pretty hard to keep
it shining in a cockpit.

Given the current talk on the topic I'm tempted to setup a controlled test
(with an additional safety pilot) where I'll get someone to shine it at me
(perhaps from the tower) during an approach in a GA aircraft.

[Jim Carriere]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> For what it's worth, I own one of the green variety - it's great for
> pointing out starts etc at night.
>
> My feeling is that if someone shined in the cockpit from (at least) 1 or 2
> miles away, ...
>
> (a) It would give me a bit of a fright - be damned annoying, but not
> damaging - possibly causing a precautionary go-around at worst.

While it is almost impossible to cause permanent damage (pretty much
the definition of class IIIa), it might ruin your night vision for a
few moments or more. If it was an innopportune time plus a panicky
pilot, this could cause worse than a precautionary go-around.
Realistically, that is unlikely.

[Noah Little]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> (c) Unless you mounted it mechanically, it would be pretty hard to keep
> it shining in a cockpit.

And if you did mount it mechanically, it would be pretty hard to keep it
shining in a cockpit. :-)

(Point being, getting more than a momentary "flash" visible to a pilot
would require more sophistication than is available to the average
backyard laser-waver.)
--
Noah

[Gord Beaman]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:

>For what it's worth, I own one of the green variety - it's great for
>pointing out starts etc at night.
>
>My feeling is that if someone shined in the cockpit from (at least) 1 or 2
>miles away, ...
>
>(a) It would give me a bit of a fright - be damned annoying, but not
>damaging - possibly causing a precautionary go-around at worst.
>
>(b) Being that the beam is visable, it should be possible to give a
>pretty accurate description of where it came from.
>
>(c) Unless you mounted it mechanically, it would be pretty hard to keep
>it shining in a cockpit.
>
>Given the current talk on the topic I'm tempted to setup a controlled test
>(with an additional safety pilot) where I'll get someone to shine it at me
>(perhaps from the tower) during an approach in a GA aircraft.
>
FYI, I'm quite sure that a Canadian Armed Forces helicopter pilot
suffered some eye damage from being hit by a powerful laser from
a Russian trawler on the West coast several years ago. It was
hushed up pretty quick but I'm fairly sure of the info.

--

--Gord
(use gordon in email)

"Without detonation, your car won't
move. That's what makes engines go".

"In my car, the high octane fuel detonates
better than the lower octane grades.
Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION".

-Burnore.

>Yes, Detonation is a normal condition and
>it occurs every time you have ignition,
>you really need to get over that!

-Josh

[Jim Carriere]

dano wrote:
> In article >,
> Gord Beaman > wrote:
>
>
>>"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hysteria aside for just a moment, have a read of ...
>>>
>>>http://www.equipped.org/lasers_airliners.htm
>>>
>>
>> Interesting and reasonable...thanks...
>
>
> Right up until the line where the author states:
>
> "More recently, the media has taken note of somewhat more powerful
> lasers, up in the area of 20 Mw, that can be obtained for less than
> $1000, which has again ignited fears."
>
> Um, a 20 megawatt laser is going to ignite more than just fear. It's
> also going to ignite steel armor and maybe even titanium.
>
> And it's going to need at least an industrial strength nuclear reactor
> to run (assume approx. 1% efficiency, so that a 20 Mw laser will need at
> least 2,000 Mw electrical power source. That's 2 gigawatts.

So would a 12.1Mw laser require 1.21 gigawatts? :)

Maybe they misprinted 20mW as 20Mw, since there is an earlier
reference to 5mW. The article is pretty sloppy in it's use of units.
The abbreviation is W not w, I don't think w stands for anything.
Capital M is short for mega (million) and lowercase m is milli (one
thousandth). Quite a few orders of magnitude!

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:

>For what it's worth, I own one of the green variety - it's great for
>pointing out starts etc at night.
>
>My feeling is that if someone shined in the cockpit from (at least) 1 or 2
>miles away, ...
>
>(a) It would give me a bit of a fright - be damned annoying, but not
>damaging - possibly causing a precautionary go-around at worst.
>
>(b) Being that the beam is visable, it should be possible to give a
>pretty accurate description of where it came from.
>
>(c) Unless you mounted it mechanically, it would be pretty hard to keep
>it shining in a cockpit.
>
>Given the current talk on the topic I'm tempted to setup a controlled test
>(with an additional safety pilot) where I'll get someone to shine it at me
>(perhaps from the tower) during an approach in a GA aircraft.

Regardless of what that web page said, or of your feelings
outlined above, I still put shining a laser, or for that matter
any other light source, at an aircraft - cockpit or not - in the
same category as shooting a rifle at an aircraft.

Sure, the probability of either bringing down the aircraft [or
even hitting it for that matter] is low. But mishap after mishap
report has identified the mishap as a chain of low probability
events and omissions that combined to render the mishap
inevitable. There is no way of some yahoo having fun pointing
his laser or rifle at an aircraft knowing whether or not the
aircraft is in the midst of such a chain, and that the momentary
distraction of a laser flash in a pilot's eye, or a round ripping
through a cockpit window might be the final event in the chain
that terminates the flight in a smoking pile of wreckage.

For verisimilitude, why don't you try that flight as an engine
out landing, with an electrical failure on a NORDO approach.
That might give us a better idea of whether or not a laser flash
can be distracting.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Cockpit Colin]

Take a look at www.wickedlasers.com - current "top of the range" is 95
Milliwatt for $499.00 USD - I don't think I'd like to be on the receiving
end of one of those at 2 or 3 miles, even for a test.


"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
.. .
> dano wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Gord Beaman > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hysteria aside for just a moment, have a read of ...
> >>>
> >>>http://www.equipped.org/lasers_airliners.htm
> >>>
> >>
> >> Interesting and reasonable...thanks...
> >
> >
> > Right up until the line where the author states:
> >
> > "More recently, the media has taken note of somewhat more powerful
> > lasers, up in the area of 20 Mw, that can be obtained for less than
> > $1000, which has again ignited fears."
> >
> > Um, a 20 megawatt laser is going to ignite more than just fear. It's
> > also going to ignite steel armor and maybe even titanium.
> >
> > And it's going to need at least an industrial strength nuclear reactor
> > to run (assume approx. 1% efficiency, so that a 20 Mw laser will need at
> > least 2,000 Mw electrical power source. That's 2 gigawatts.
>
> So would a 12.1Mw laser require 1.21 gigawatts? :)
>
> Maybe they misprinted 20mW as 20Mw, since there is an earlier
> reference to 5mW. The article is pretty sloppy in it's use of units.
> The abbreviation is W not w, I don't think w stands for anything.
> Capital M is short for mega (million) and lowercase m is milli (one
> thousandth). Quite a few orders of magnitude!

[Cockpit Colin]

I hear what you're saying - in the end, it becomes a matter of chance. I've
no doubt that under any circumstances a laser in the cockpit is something we
really don't need - if it happens to be during the likes of a SE approach
(especially in the event of it triggering a single-engine go-around) then
yes, it could most definately be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I just hope it never happens to me, although I have to say I'd prefer it to
someone taking pot-shots with a rifle.





> Regardless of what that web page said, or of your feelings
> outlined above, I still put shining a laser, or for that matter
> any other light source, at an aircraft - cockpit or not - in the
> same category as shooting a rifle at an aircraft.
>
> Sure, the probability of either bringing down the aircraft [or
> even hitting it for that matter] is low. But mishap after mishap
> report has identified the mishap as a chain of low probability
> events and omissions that combined to render the mishap
> inevitable. There is no way of some yahoo having fun pointing
> his laser or rifle at an aircraft knowing whether or not the
> aircraft is in the midst of such a chain, and that the momentary
> distraction of a laser flash in a pilot's eye, or a round ripping
> through a cockpit window might be the final event in the chain
> that terminates the flight in a smoking pile of wreckage.
>
> For verisimilitude, why don't you try that flight as an engine
> out landing, with an electrical failure on a NORDO approach.
> That might give us a better idea of whether or not a laser flash
> can be distracting.
> --
> OJ III
> [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:

>I hear what you're saying - in the end, it becomes a matter of chance. I've
>no doubt that under any circumstances a laser in the cockpit is something we
>really don't need - if it happens to be during the likes of a SE approach
>(especially in the event of it triggering a single-engine go-around) then
>yes, it could most definately be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
>
>I just hope it never happens to me, although I have to say I'd prefer it to
>someone taking pot-shots with a rifle.

Serendipity strikes with a vengeance. This article just appeared
in this morning's Washington Post, "Lasers To Signal Airspace
Breaches - Sky in Region to Be Constantly Scanned"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57641-2005Apr15.html

"The U.S. military will begin using an elaborate network of
cameras and lasers next month to scan the sky over Washington and
flash colored warning beams at aircraft that enter the nation's
most restricted metropolitan airspace."

It goes on to explain how a system of camera/laser units will
cover most of the restricted area covering a roughly 50 mi radius
centered on Washington, extending to North of Baltimore, South of
Quantico, and including all three major airports, National,
Dulles, and BWI, in the region. [Derived from a chart
accompanying the print article, but not available online. The
article itself says the camera/lasers will cover a roughly 30 mi
radius. Given my skepticism of average media reporter/editor
understanding in military/tech things, I'll buy into the 30 miles
after seeing feedback from pilots. ;->]

The article does address the ideas raised in this thread; saying:

"Unlike pointers and other eye-damaging lasers that have raised
safety concerns among pilots, the military's beams are
low-intensity and safe enough for the eyes yet distinctive enough
to alert pilots that something's wrong, officials say. From
government building rooftops, the lasers will pinpoint an
aircraft from 20 miles away and flash a quick red-red-green
sequence repeatedly. The cameras will be overseen by NORAD
officials from multiple locations, including Colorado Springs;
Cheyenne, Wyo.; and the Washington area. NORAD operators will
activate the laser beams if a pilot does not respond to radio
contact or an aircraft intercept.

"Researchers who developed the technology say the laser beam is
so narrowly targeted that other nearby aircraft will not be able
to see it. Curtis Davis, a researcher at MIT Lincoln Laboratory
who helped develop the system, said the beam is stronger than a
laser pointer, but more diffuse. "We've taken the size of the
beam and made it 15,000 times bigger," Davis said. "It's a foot
in diameter."

Hmm. 12"/15,000 = 0.0008"? That's an awfully tight beam from a
laser pointer. Wonder if/how much a laser pointer diffuses going
up to flight altitudes? [I know, I know, coherent beams, but I'm
old enough to have been so canalized by Boy Scout flashlights
that by the time lasers rolled around ...]
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Jim Carriere]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> Hmm. 12"/15,000 = 0.0008"? That's an awfully tight beam from a
> laser pointer. Wonder if/how much a laser pointer diffuses going
> up to flight altitudes? [I know, I know, coherent beams, but I'm
> old enough to have been so canalized by Boy Scout flashlights
> that by the time lasers rolled around ...]

I bet the 15,000 figure is in terms of relative area, not diameter.
Figuring that, I get about .1" diameter for the laser pointer, which
makes more sense.

I'm sure somebody's already made the first Dr. Evil joke on this one,
what's next, sharks with laser beams? :)

In all seriousness, the plan has some merit.

[Cockpit Colin]

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

I've read a couple of NG posts from pilots who have been intercepted by
F16s - needless to say that they got the pilots attention! (not to mention
total, complete, 100% co-operation!)



"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> "Cockpit Colin" > wrote:
>[i]
>>I hear what you're saying - in the end, it becomes a matter of chance.
>>I've
>>no doubt that under any circumstances a laser in the cockpit is something
>>we
>>really don't need - if it happens to be during the likes of a SE approach
>>(especially in the event of it triggering a single-engine go-around) then
>>yes, it could most definately be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
>>
>>I just hope it never happens to me, although I have to say I'd prefer it
>>to
>>someone taking pot-shots with a rifle.
>
> Serendipity strikes with a vengeance. This article just appeared
> in this morning's Washington Post, "Lasers To Signal Airspace
> Breaches - Sky in Region to Be Constantly Scanned"
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57641-2005Apr15.html
>
> "The U.S. military will begin using an elaborate network of
> cameras and lasers next month to scan the sky over Washington and
> flash colored warning beams at aircraft that enter the nation's
> most restricted metropolitan airspace."
>
> It goes on to explain how a system of camera/laser units will
> cover most of the restricted area covering a roughly 50 mi radius
> centered on Washington, extending to North of Baltimore, South of
> Quantico, and including all three major airports, National,
> Dulles, and BWI, in the region. [Derived from a chart
> accompanying the print article, but not available online. The
> article itself says the camera/lasers will cover a roughly 30 mi
> radius. Given my skepticism of average media reporter/editor
> understanding in military/tech things, I'll buy into the 30 miles
> after seeing feedback from pilots. ;->]
>
> The article does address the ideas raised in this thread; saying:
>
> "Unlike pointers and other eye-damaging lasers that have raised
> safety concerns among pilots, the military's beams are
> low-intensity and safe enough for the eyes yet distinctive enough
> to alert pilots that something's wrong, officials say. From
> government building rooftops, the lasers will pinpoint an
> aircraft from 20 miles away and flash a quick red-red-green
> sequence repeatedly. The cameras will be overseen by NORAD
> officials from multiple locations, including Colorado Springs;
> Cheyenne, Wyo.; and the Washington area. NORAD operators will
> activate the laser beams if a pilot does not respond to radio
> contact or an aircraft intercept.
>
> "Researchers who developed the technology say the laser beam is
> so narrowly targeted that other nearby aircraft will not be able
> to see it. Curtis Davis, a researcher at MIT Lincoln Laboratory
> who helped develop the system, said the beam is stronger than a
> laser pointer, but more diffuse. "We've taken the size of the
> beam and made it 15,000 times bigger," Davis said. "It's a foot
> in diameter."
>
> Hmm. 12"/15,000 = 0.0008"? That's an awfully tight beam from a
> laser pointer. Wonder if/how much a laser pointer diffuses going
> up to flight altitudes?
> --
> OJ III
> [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[[email protected]]

Gee, finally they are obeying the interceptors? back in the 50s some of
them would try to evade. In the 60s the drug smugglers would try it,
too. But then we started tailing them, lights out, and keeping the
controller informed as to where they were going. The evasion in the 50s
gradually stopped when the intercepted aircraft found they just made
things worse for themselves. Although one 86 pilot got so ****ed he
'faced' a Bonanza who instantly learned all he wanted to know about
jetwash and from then on was a nice boy.
Never heard if the 86 pilot got in serious trouble for that maneuever.
Walt BJ

[Cockpit Colin]

I'll bet there are some interesting accounts to be told by many. I guess the
big difference between tailing a drug runner and tailing someone who's
busted a TFR is that (post 911) the TFR buster is no doubt going to make a
lot of people really nervous if he's over a populated area - and I'd think a
lot more likely to get a few cannon rounds through his aircraft if he didn't
obey.

I've heard rumours that the likes of F16s have a few problems keeping up
with GA aircraft because GA cruise speeds are below the Mil Jet's stall
speed - any experiences anyone?

PS: Pardon my ignorance, but what's an "86"?


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Gee, finally they are obeying the interceptors? back in the 50s some of
> them would try to evade. In the 60s the drug smugglers would try it,
> too. But then we started tailing them, lights out, and keeping the
> controller informed as to where they were going. The evasion in the 50s
> gradually stopped when the intercepted aircraft found they just made
> things worse for themselves. Although one 86 pilot got so ****ed he
> 'faced' a Bonanza who instantly learned all he wanted to know about
> jetwash and from then on was a nice boy.
> Never heard if the 86 pilot got in serious trouble for that maneuever.
> Walt BJ
>

[Yeff]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:33:25 +1200, Cockpit Colin wrote:

> PS: Pardon my ignorance, but what's an "86"?

F-86 Sabre. Walt flew 'em.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[J.A.M.]

An 86 I'd bet it's an F-86 Sabre. First flown in 1947, several world records
beaten. Fought in Corea against the MiG-15.


"Cockpit Colin" > escribió en el mensaje
...

> PS: Pardon my ignorance, but what's an "86"?
>
>

[Gord Beaman]

"J.A.M." > wrote:

>An 86 I'd bet it's an F-86 Sabre. First flown in 1947, several world records
>beaten. Fought in Corea against the MiG-15.
>
>
Also fought in Korea for that matter...
:)

--

--Gord
(use gordon in email)

"Without detonation, your car won't
move. That's what makes engines go".

"In my car, the high octane fuel detonates
better than the lower octane grades.
Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION".

-Burnore.

>Yes, Detonation is a normal condition and
>it occurs every time you have ignition,
>you really need to get over that!

-Josh