French Navy ATL2 MPA: Someone Just Lasered The Wrong Aircraft(navalnews.com)
navalnews.com
French Navy ATL2 MPA: Someone Just Lasered The Wrong Aircraft
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/french-navy-atl2-mpa-someone-just-lasered-the-wrong-aircraft/
74 comments
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.
If the sensor surface ends up with visible scorch marks then I don't think it would matter much if it was sensitive or not
Whether or not the laser is in the visible spectrum matters quite a bit for it’s classifications/safety. According to IEC 60825–1 a laser from roughly over 1/2 a mW up to 5mW goes from class 2 to class 4 if it’s outside visible. A nearly 5mW laser could scorch many materials, given enough time.
Wouldn’t the IR laser be flashed anyway? How much time would they need to be on?
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.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2021/08/02/sony-officially-warns-that-...
[1] https://petapixel.com/2021/08/02/sony-officially-warns-that-...
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!
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!
> the crap that some light shows get away with is criminal
Seconded.
Telecoms laser engineer here, and amateur musician. I'm astounded how casually class 3B and class 4 lasers are treated in the entertainment industry, or that using them in free space with poor travel limit stops / beam containment is even legal..... Often it appears little-to-no consideration is given as to what happens if a beam becomes misaligned or reflected into the audience.
You only have one set of eyes.
Seconded.
Telecoms laser engineer here, and amateur musician. I'm astounded how casually class 3B and class 4 lasers are treated in the entertainment industry, or that using them in free space with poor travel limit stops / beam containment is even legal..... Often it appears little-to-no consideration is given as to what happens if a beam becomes misaligned or reflected into the audience.
You only have one set of eyes.
I felt hoodwinked when it turned out when I'd designed in a class 1 (intrinsically safe, power limited) time-of-flight laser distance sensor and the purchasing department replaced it due to lack of availability for a 'superior' range class 2 (DO NOT STARE INTO BEAM for more than 0.25 seconds, intentionally suppressing your blink reflex can cause damage) sensor. Flags went up, every stakeholder was pulled in, we redid the risk assessment (aware of the temptation to fudge it to ship the equipment on time) and eventually allowed it after replacing a clear anodized part with a black anodized one and festooning the machine with "Do not stare into laser" stickers.
My roommate in college was a stagehand, we talked a bit about the safety and it appears the consideration is more on the scale of "We try not to shine the lasers in people's eyes" and less like "We have redundant, proven processes that ensure people cannot be harmed."
It feels like they've missed an important distinction between what's acceptable for your own purposes and what's acceptable risk to impose on someone else. Safety when messing about in your own backyard would often not pass OSHA requirements, that makes sense because it's your own risk and your own reward, this is ethically different an industrial scenario where you're forcing someone who's just trying to feed their family to endanger their eyes for someone else's profitability, similarly, concertgoers should and do assume that entertainment light shows are safe, while [some in] the entertainment industry take it much more casually.
My roommate in college was a stagehand, we talked a bit about the safety and it appears the consideration is more on the scale of "We try not to shine the lasers in people's eyes" and less like "We have redundant, proven processes that ensure people cannot be harmed."
It feels like they've missed an important distinction between what's acceptable for your own purposes and what's acceptable risk to impose on someone else. Safety when messing about in your own backyard would often not pass OSHA requirements, that makes sense because it's your own risk and your own reward, this is ethically different an industrial scenario where you're forcing someone who's just trying to feed their family to endanger their eyes for someone else's profitability, similarly, concertgoers should and do assume that entertainment light shows are safe, while [some in] the entertainment industry take it much more casually.
The number 1 lesson I learned in laser safety class: do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Last time I was at a concert in San Francisco Bill Graham auditorium, I noticed that lasers travelled fixed path always pointing at the walls or between balcony levels, never at people.
Of course they are not aimed at people!
See the comment below regarding concerns of misalignment, limit stops & containment for beams with the power to cause permanent blindness. I'm sure some venues handle this safely [1], but powerful lasers are being treated far to casually for my liking.
[1] Though I wonder what would happen if you asked for a copy of their risk assessment?
See the comment below regarding concerns of misalignment, limit stops & containment for beams with the power to cause permanent blindness. I'm sure some venues handle this safely [1], but powerful lasers are being treated far to casually for my liking.
[1] Though I wonder what would happen if you asked for a copy of their risk assessment?
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.
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.
And then the beam strikes a reflective surface and may go anywhere.
"they make sure there are none"
A reflective surface may appear anywhere at any time.
A concert-goer may release a balloon, or have a phone on a selfie stick, or the machine may be bumped.
"they make sure there are none"
A reflective surface may appear anywhere at any time.
A concert-goer may release a balloon, or have a phone on a selfie stick, or the machine may be bumped.
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.
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
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
> As for the initial detection of the laser, it was probably done by the pilot and co-pilot with their “mk1 eyeball” (i.e their own eyes).
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_I_Eyeball
For some reason this feels like distinctively American humor. Non?
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_I_Eyeball
For some reason this feels like distinctively American humor. Non?
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.
"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.
I guess it is the kind of thing that is worldwide or (re-) discovered independently everywhere.
Military humour?
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.
I'm picturing a drill sergeant doing drill on this and barking out orders: "Laugh"! "Chuckle"!
A little bit of Drill Sergeant humor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xen1KeYDnCI
Speaking of senses of humor ... I think the OP merely asked a question, and wasn't questioning the feasibility of the phenomenon.
Now 'Military Intelligence' is another thing entirely ... ;)
Now 'Military Intelligence' is another thing entirely ... ;)
True story: I once had someone from England joke with me "military intelligence -- bit of an oxymoron!" I retorted "so is Great Britain" and we both had a good laugh. :)
Second this sounds military, but probably American?
Does the punishment fit the crime here?
Exactly! It should be at least a year in jail if not five+.
What was the best outcome the person expected? To crash an airplane full of people?
What was the best outcome the person expected? To crash an airplane full of people?
> 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.
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™.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
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...
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.
The Chinese military has multiple types of blinding laser weapons.
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-4-blinding-las...
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-4-blinding-las...
>> If you were a rouge state […]
> The Chinese military […]
They would, ostensibly, fall under the header of 'rouge state', but usually people just say 'red'.
> The Chinese military […]
They would, ostensibly, fall under the header of 'rouge state', but usually people just say 'red'.
it's probably a typo for "rogue" state
Saw a documentary where drug smugglers between Morocco and Spain used a laser to try to blind the police helicopter that was tracking them.
> Who are those people?
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.
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.
though that air base had been in continuous activity since the 1950s, so it's not really a new one
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.
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.
Of all things to point your laser at, why an airplane?
I guess it could make a good target to test the range of the laser if you're not aware of the dangers. There isn't much else in the sky that would reflect it and pointing it at buildings instead may not be visible due to all the light pollution around from the streets as opposed to the dark sky behind an airplane at night.
A tall building, a mountain, a cloud ... so many options that don't risk lives.
does a laser make a bright spot on the airplane that is ?visible to the person back on the ground?
No, for several reasons:
The ray is not "straight", it has a slight angle, meaning the dot is larger and larger when distance increases, so it's less luminous (but still very luminous, enough to blind you temporarily). It's also the reason why it has way more probability to "hit" somebody's eye.
You can spot an airplane, but you can't really see secondary light source on it, it's just too far away. Even if a laser is a lot of light, the dot is not emitting enough for the naked eye to see any difference.
The light from a laser is directed, meaning all its photons goes in one direction, hence why it will blind an eye. But when it hits a surface, the photons bounce in all directions, and thus those secondary photons land in your eye in lower quantity because they're spread.
The ray is not "straight", it has a slight angle, meaning the dot is larger and larger when distance increases, so it's less luminous (but still very luminous, enough to blind you temporarily). It's also the reason why it has way more probability to "hit" somebody's eye.
You can spot an airplane, but you can't really see secondary light source on it, it's just too far away. Even if a laser is a lot of light, the dot is not emitting enough for the naked eye to see any difference.
The light from a laser is directed, meaning all its photons goes in one direction, hence why it will blind an eye. But when it hits a surface, the photons bounce in all directions, and thus those secondary photons land in your eye in lower quantity because they're spread.
No idea, I haven't tried it (and not planning to) but I can understand the curiosity to find out.
Having read the news on a French website few days ago, suspicion goes to the usual suspects.
Do you have some specific group in mind? Someone needs to be either extremely stupid or demoralized to do such things.
It's happened a load of times in the UK. I think often kids or young adults who haven't really thought things through and just think it is funny or "edgy" to their mates.
The distance to target can give a false sense of safety to the perp. so interesting to see this article. I can't imagine the look on that person's face when the police knocked at the door!
The distance to target can give a false sense of safety to the perp. so interesting to see this article. I can't imagine the look on that person's face when the police knocked at the door!
Good on them for making it a six month sentence, that's very fair. Shows good sense.
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 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?
[deleted]
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.
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?
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?
The fact that the person was caught makes this case probably a little different than most. Using analogies like yours can be helpful, but I have to wonder about the intent/knowledge of the dangers with those actions.
Pointing a laser at anyone/anything is possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Ironically, your analogy is something that itself doesn't always have negative consequences related to it (ie how does that change when it's a police officer, or happens during a protest, etc).
Anyway, I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome, it definitely will make it more visible how bad this type of action is through news and what-not which is a good thing.
Pointing a laser at anyone/anything is possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Ironically, your analogy is something that itself doesn't always have negative consequences related to it (ie how does that change when it's a police officer, or happens during a protest, etc).
Anyway, I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome, it definitely will make it more visible how bad this type of action is through news and what-not which is a good thing.
> possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone.
Shooting a gun at someone could lead to one person dead.
Shooting a laser at a plane could lead to hundreds dead.
If this is a metric, then 6 months is a great deal for the shooter, correct?
>I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome
It's probably impossible to measure that, since the factors are subjective. But it is in line with many punishments for similar action, as I mentioned.
Also 6 months sentenced means much less served in most cases, the same way a 10 year sentence may get out in 5.
Shooting a gun at someone could lead to one person dead.
Shooting a laser at a plane could lead to hundreds dead.
If this is a metric, then 6 months is a great deal for the shooter, correct?
>I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome
It's probably impossible to measure that, since the factors are subjective. But it is in line with many punishments for similar action, as I mentioned.
Also 6 months sentenced means much less served in most cases, the same way a 10 year sentence may get out in 5.
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.
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?
[deleted]
> For nuisance behavior like this
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.
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.
From the article:
“owning or using a laser of a class higher than 2 can lead to a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, with a fine of 7,500 euros”
I would argue this is a bit of an issue… obviously it’s not in the US where we have our Freedumb^tm, but still.
“owning or using a laser of a class higher than 2 can lead to a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, with a fine of 7,500 euros”
I would argue this is a bit of an issue… obviously it’s not in the US where we have our Freedumb^tm, but still.
Last year, during a stargazing event at a local observatory, the organizer used one of those and everyone was amazed to how powerful these things are, they seem like they could reach up to kilometers. He also explained he had special authorization for it and the fines for us if he bought one, I immediately could see why, could you elaborate on why you think the opposite?
Not OP but simply put, these lasers are fairly trivial to assemble anyways. And the vast, vast majority of users don't go lasering aircraft. Given how incredibly tedious most governmental processes are in the US, licensing could take an extremely long amount of time. Not to mention there's a privacy issue there-- why does the government need to know about my scientific curiosities?
> trivial to assemble
So is a house fire. Doesn’t make it OK to go around endangering the rest of the public
So is a house fire. Doesn’t make it OK to go around endangering the rest of the public
With lasers that powerful, it's not just about aircraft. If you pointed it at people intentionally you could blind them, which makes it a weapon.
There's tons of stuff that has legitimate scientific uses that needs to be licenced for lots of reasons. For example, you need a licence to have iodine with concentrations above 2.2%.
There's tons of stuff that has legitimate scientific uses that needs to be licenced for lots of reasons. For example, you need a licence to have iodine with concentrations above 2.2%.
The place where carrying a drink on the street is forbidden?
All the time in Southern California you see police helicopters circling around. There was that time I read this
http://thepricker.synthasite.com/
on the plane from JFK to LAX and was feeling paranoid and it seemed like one of the helicopters was following me around everywhere I went.
It's natural that somebody would want to "reach out and touch" one of these annoying insects and periodically people laser police helicopters. It is always a bad idea because if you do that then they really will swoop down on you and take you away.
http://thepricker.synthasite.com/
on the plane from JFK to LAX and was feeling paranoid and it seemed like one of the helicopters was following me around everywhere I went.
It's natural that somebody would want to "reach out and touch" one of these annoying insects and periodically people laser police helicopters. It is always a bad idea because if you do that then they really will swoop down on you and take you away.
It's hard for me to feel sorry for people complaining about the government in California. They literally voted a massive tax machine into place that can't be undone and are surprised with [very predictable] results.
Eh, some people where born and raised there. I don't really feel like I had any agency over the policies of the state of California despite it having been my home for the first 33 of my 34 years.
I would have loved to stay in California if I felt like there was any chance of fixing policy in the state (and relatedly fixing affordability of living there).
I would have loved to stay in California if I felt like there was any chance of fixing policy in the state (and relatedly fixing affordability of living there).
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.