If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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.] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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.] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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...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.] |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 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...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.] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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"? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Updated List of Military Information-Exchange Forums | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 15th 05 04:18 AM |
22 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 24th 04 06:47 AM |
22 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 24th 04 06:46 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |