Lasers Pointed at Aircraft

[Regnad Kcin]

Washington (AP) -- The FBI wants to know why laser beams have been directed into the cockpits of commercial airliners six times in the past four days. A recent memo sent to law enforcement agencies said there's evidence terrorists have explored using lasers as weapons.I'm curious about what that evidence is. And wouldn't a ground-based laser have to be fairly powerful before it could be deemed a weapon?

[WildCat]

I was going to start a thread on this yesterday, but had no idea what to make of it. It is no small feat to aim a laser into the cockpit of a flying jet, the "kids w/ a toy laser" theory is not viable, IMHO. Maybe someone is trying to blind the pilots? Or some kind of sick joke?

[Ranb]

I would have to agree that it is not kids with a toy lazer. But aiming a lazer can be easy. I have a lazer range finder. It has an aiming eyepiece with cross hairs. When used with a tripod, it can be held steady and even tracked on a moving object. My range finder uses an eye-safe lazer, not visible to the naked eye, so whatever the pilots are seeing, it is something else.

Maybe someone is using an artillary range finder. I saw a Russian tank model on Ebay last year. Was supposed to be good for several miles. I was told it's legal use in the USA was questionable.

One of Tom Clancey's novel's (Debt of Honor I think) had a couple of Americans using a poweful light to blind Japanese AWACS pilots as they were on their final approach.

Ranb

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by Ranb
One of Tom Clancey's novel's (Debt of Honor I think) had a couple of Americans using a poweful light to blind Japanese AWACS pilots as they were on their final approach.

Ranb

Jasper Maskelyne did it for real in WWII ... movie coming soon starring Tom Cruise !

[TillEulenspiegel]

The jets targeted had sufficient altitude and forward airspeed that there is no doubt that military grade equipment was used couple that with the emitted spectrum of the laser light ( Green )and you may assured that this was no prank. The cheap pointers used <5mW output at ~620nM the cheapest Green is a few hundred dollars and have an effective range of ~~1 Mi @ nighttime.. Off hand it sounds to me that a tunable dye laser was used , which are expensive, bulky and complex...or scarier still, a deticated military devise.

[Pescado]

I've read in one or two news stories about these events that the FBI thinks the lasers being used are the industrial lasers used for construction purposes such as leveling ground. No links to sources, but the sources I read didn't cite any evidence anyway.

I admit to being fascinated by these stories as well. Top on my list of questions about it are: how exactly do you aim a laser-beam INTO a cockpit and is this really a new trend, or just a continuation of an older one?

[varwoche]

Not to minimize the seriousness but this doesn't exactly seem al Qaeda like, in terms of lethality.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ranb
One of Tom Clancey's novel's (Debt of Honor I think) had a couple of Americans using a poweful light to blind Japanese AWACS pilots as they were on their final approach.


I thought of the same thing when I heard the story. Like in the novel, they were targeting pilots as they were landing.

It's not unthinkable that someone would look to fiction for inspiration for a terrorist act.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche
Not to minimize the seriousness but this doesn't exactly seem al Qaeda like, in terms of lethality.

Only because the plan failed.

[username]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Only because the plan failed.

But what is the actual danger? commercial aircraft are only a few years away from being fully computer controlled, even on takeoff and landing. If a jet is simply flying through the sky and a laser is pointed into the cockpit, what is the harm?

Apparently there hasn't been any.

Worst case scenario would seem to be a pilot who suffers vision problems for life. Very bad for the pilot who makes a living with his eyes, but not really a big deal in terms of a terrorist attack.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Only because the plan failed.

Worst case, plane crash lands NEAR THE AIRPORT, probably with landing gear down. That wouldn't even kill everyone on board. As varwoche said, that's pretty small stuff for Al Qaeda.

Even if it were done on a large scale, it seems so likely to fail. Can you really blind both the pilot and co-pilot at the same time, and at the exact right moment so they're too close to landing to pull up, but too far to make a proper landing blind?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by username
But what is the actual danger? commercial aircraft are only a few years away from being fully computer controlled, even on takeoff and landing. If a jet is simply flying through the sky and a laser is pointed into the cockpit, what is the harm?

Not true. An aircraft may be auto-piloted through various phases of flight, and in good weather with no x-wind could possibly be lifted off with an auto-pilot. But landing? No way. Too many variables. A plane could be safely remote-piloted...but that's not really the same thing as letting an aircraft land itself via computer program. That's not going to happen anytime soon....not even with cargo carriers. Even an unmanned ship would make a real mess of an airfield if the auto-lander didn't work perfectly.

A pilot on final approach also has a great many tasks to accomplish all in order. If anything gfoes wrong, they've likely trained for it. Visibility, x-winds, gusts, other traffic, engine trouble, electrical system failure, hydrolics, even on-board fires have been thought of and trained for. What makes the laser so potentially problematic is that it's such a new threat that it's likely that no one's got training to handle it.

Not to say it's an actual threat though...but it may be...and as such is worth considering and taking seriously.

-z

[username]

Originally posted by rikzilla
[B]Not true. An aircraft may be auto-piloted through various phases of flight, and in good weather with no x-wind could possibly be lifted off with an auto-pilot. But landing? No way. Too many variables. A plane could be safely remote-piloted...but that's not really the same thing as letting an aircraft land itself via computer program. That's not going to happen anytime soon....not even with cargo carriers. Even an unmanned ship would make a real mess of an airfield if the auto-lander didn't work perfectly.


Well I am no aviation expert, but there is a reason the government is spending so much money on GPS satellites and differential stations. The stated goal of the FAA is to allow commercial aircraft to fly in a completely automated fashion. Already we have planes being precisely tracked during take off and landing so the coords can be stored on a per runway basis. Then those coords are fed into the aircraft and GPS tells the aircraft if it is on or off course. Any manual corrections are handled from the ground.

I don't know how many years away this is from reality, but it is being tested as I type this.

Kind of a derail, but oh well. Read all about it from the FAA (http://gps.faa.gov/)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by username
Well I am no aviation expert, but there is a reason the government is spending so much money on GPS satellites and differential stations. The stated goal of the FAA is to allow commercial aircraft to fly in a completely automated fashion. Already we have planes being precisely tracked during take off and landing so the coords can be stored on a per runway basis. Then those coords are fed into the aircraft and GPS tells the aircraft if it is on or off course. Any manual corrections are handled from the ground.

I don't know how many years away this is from reality, but it is being tested as I type this.

Kind of a derail, but oh well. Read all about it from the FAA (http://gps.faa.gov/)

Interesting. I'm a pilot, and until you've landed an aircraft in a gusty crosswind you just can't imagine how many variables can be present when trying to bring ship and earth back together without bending anything. It may indeed be possible to,...no it undoubtedly will be possible in the future as technology improves.. but what happens when your computer fails, or your uplink to the ship?? What? Can you imaging a massive A340 ghosting around in the sky with a load of doomed passengers? Or even a 747 cargo ship loaded with whatever....?? At the very least even one ship going hay-wire in the sky would create a very nasty mess. Even if they actually manage to do it there will always be someone up there to take over just in case.

The real problem with such a system is that if they do automate everything, AND still use pilots on-board as caretakers...well if/when something does happen I have to wonder how sharp their skills would be?? No, I may be wrong, but I just don't see it actually happening.

-z

[JLam]

Sorry to be a bubble burster, but autolanding is indeed possible, and actually quite common.

From http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/aviation.php3

"Autoland" systems have been in wide commercial use in different parts of the world since the 1980s. Auto landings are routinely performed thousands of times a day throughout the world.
How the system works
Landing categories are broken down by minimum cloud heights, also known as the "ceiling," and the amount of horizontal visibility. There are three different categories of landing systems:

1. The "CAT IIIa" approach is flown by an aircraft equipped with three separate autopilot systems (one for actually commanding the aircraft, and two for backup) to a decision altitude of 50 feet, with at least 700 feet of horizontal visibility (referred to as RVR, or Runway Visual Range). With this system, the crew must have visual confirmation that the runway is in sight, and that the aircraft is on course to land upon it, whereupon the autopilot system is disconnected and the pilot flies the aircraft to a safe touchdown.

2. CAT IIIb is a true autoland category, that is, the approach and landing touchdown are controlled entirely by what is known as a Flight Management System, or FMS. The crew must see the runway at an alert altitude of 50 feet with an RVR of 600 feet and verify that all three autopilots are on line and functioning correctly, and that the aircraft is configured to land, at which point the decision is made to allow the system to land the aircraft.

3. A CAT IIIc autoland approach has a higher alert height, 100 feet, then a IIIb landing, but a shorter RVR of 300 feet. Again, a final decision is made at the alert height to either continue the landing or abort.

In all three categories of approach, the Flight Management System is entirely capable of landing the aircraft and, in some CAT IIIc-equipped aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400, capable of applying the brakes after touchdown and stopping the aircraft as well.



This isn't to say that all airliners are using autoland systems, only to say that the technology currently exists and has been in use for some time.

() edited to correct typo

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Ranb
. . .One of Tom Clancey's novel's (Debt of Honor I think) had a couple of Americans using a poweful light to blind Japanese AWACS pilots as they were on their final approach.

Ranb

In the story it wasn't a laser, just an extremely powerful strobe.

Though powerful laser rangefinders can blind unprotected infantry, use of these specifically in that role is outlawed. At least for those who actually pay attention to laws.

A set of polarized sunglasses goes a long way in mitigating this threat.

[jj]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The jets targeted had sufficient altitude and forward airspeed that there is no doubt that military grade equipment was used couple that with the emitted spectrum of the laser light ( Green )and you may assured that this was no prank. The cheap pointers used <5mW output at ~620nM the cheapest Green is a few hundred dollars and have an effective range of ~~1 Mi @ nighttime.. Off hand it sounds to me that a tunable dye laser was used , which are expensive, bulky and complex...or scarier still, a deticated military devise.

Could be a 514 nm mode argon laser if it's green, or even a multimode one to run at much higher efficiency.

Still, it's expensive, "professional" equipment. Bad news. Aiming is no simple thing, either.

I'd worry more about it being used to illuminate to use some kind of simple homing device :(

[TillEulenspiegel]

You posted what I fear and did not. That these could be tests for targeting devises for a munition. One could build the optics and electronics. The hard part would be the maths and control of the physics of the device to keep it stable. That's from scratch. The cheap way would be to retrofit an available older IR detector munition with one that would be sensitive to the emitted spectrum of the laser.

[Kopji]

Green lasers are used for special effects at concerts and can probably be rented at a theatre supply store.

They are scanned at a rapid rate to paint an image on smoke. If a plane was painted with one it might appear that it was accurately targeted by a single beam when it was not.

My vote is for some teenagers playing around, not understanding how dangerous it is. Hopefully when the troops kick down the door to get them they will ask before shooting.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Kopji
Green lasers are used for special effects at concerts and can probably be rented at a theatre supply store.

They are scanned at a rapid rate to paint an image on smoke. If a plane was painted with one it might appear that it was accurately targeted by a single beam when it was not.


I was having a hard time understanding how someone one the ground would be able to get a good angle on pinpointing the pilots eyes as well. Then I thought of the type of laser you described here. Scanning a wide area could get the eyes of both pilot and co-pilot I guess. But I still have a problem with the angle from the ground. The windshield on a comercial airliner is a pretty small target, and if aimed from the ground wouldn't it illuminate the ceiling of the cockpit going over the pilots head? Perhaps it causes a glare on the windshield itself.

JPK

[SezMe]

3. A CAT IIIc autoland approach has a higher alert height, 100 feet, then a IIIb landing, but a shorter RVR of 300 feet. Again, a final decision is made at the alert height to either continue the landing or abort.
I was recently on a flight on one of the newer Boeing planes and a very talkative pilot. He said the plane could (and usually did) land itself. What especially caught my ear was his statement that the RVR of 300 feet was so they could see where to turn off the runway!

By the way, he also said that almost all the decisions that pilots make these days are economic ones. The example he emphasized was a decision to fly a bit faster (using more fuel) to make up for being behind schedule so that passengers with connections did not miss it (thereby costing the airline a LOT of money)

Anecdotal, I know, but there it is.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I thought of the same thing when I heard the story. Like in the novel, they were targeting pilots as they were landing.

It's not unthinkable that someone would look to fiction for inspiration for a terrorist act.

That same novel also featured flying a commercial airliner into a building - the Capitol in that case, while president and congress were inside.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Chaos
That same novel also featured flying a commercial airliner into a building - the Capitol in that case, while president and congress were inside.

It did indeed, and it's not a huge streatch to go from there to multiple planes and multiple targets.

[Kopji]

I was having a hard time understanding how someone one the ground would be able to get a good angle on pinpointing the pilots eyes as well. Then I thought of the type of laser you described here. Scanning a wide area could get the eyes of both pilot and co-pilot I guess. But I still have a problem with the angle from the ground. The windshield on a commercial airliner is a pretty small target, and if aimed from the ground wouldn't it illuminate the ceiling of the cockpit going over the pilots head? Perhaps it causes a glare on the windshield itself.


I need to catch myself from giving tips for terrorists disrupting aircraft on the Internet.

A scanned laser makes more sense to me if they just want to blind the pilots. Minimal targeting required and easy to program a square of a few feet or so at that range.

If I were an investigator I'd check out theatre special effect equipment rentals and local bands or nightclubs.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Interesting. I'm a pilot, and until you've landed an aircraft in a gusty crosswind you just can't imagine how many variables can be present when trying to bring ship and earth back together without bending anything. It may indeed be possible to,...no it undoubtedly will be possible in the future as technology improves.. but what happens when your computer fails, or your uplink to the ship?? What? Can you imaging a massive A340 ghosting around in the sky with a load of doomed passengers? Or even a 747 cargo ship loaded with whatever....?? At the very least even one ship going hay-wire in the sky would create a very nasty mess. Even if they actually manage to do it there will always be someone up there to take over just in case.

The real problem with such a system is that if they do automate everything, AND still use pilots on-board as caretakers...well if/when something does happen I have to wonder how sharp their skills would be?? No, I may be wrong, but I just don't see it actually happening.

-z

If you do not see it, then you need to look again.

:rolleyes:

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/022102.html

Raytheon conducts successful flight test of global positioning system (GPS) precision landing system

MARLBORO, Mass., (Feb 21, 2002) - Raytheon Company successfully completed the first in a series of autoland flight tests using its Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) on January 17, 2002 at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, equipped with Rockwell-Collins GLU-920 Multi-Mode receivers (MMR) with GLS software, utilized differential GPS corrections and precision approach path data uplinked from a Raytheon RAYNAV-4100 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ground facility at the Salt Lake City Airport. A series of autocoupled (hands-off) approaches, through touchdown and rollout, were conducted using two different runways.

...

Of course, autolanding systems have been around for several years now, but 2002 just marks a milestone for the autoland system that Raytheon has been working on.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by JPK
... But I still have a problem with the angle from the ground. The windshield on a comercial airliner is a pretty small target, and if aimed from the ground wouldn't it illuminate the ceiling of the cockpit going over the pilots head? ...

When I was taking flying lessons one question I asked was why do the windshields of aircraft not give better views of the ground; they mostly give a straight ahead view from the nose up? The answer I received was that pilots need to view the ground mainly only from the side, not so much straight ahead -- especially when landing, due to flairing of the plane. So getting the laser (aimed from the ground) into the cockpit would be very difficult (the body of the plane is in the way); and then striking the pilot's eyes???

This seems too weird a story for terrorism. Besides, don't they pretty much go with simple and direct methods over complex and technological?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Not true. An aircraft may be auto-piloted through various phases of flight, and in good weather with no x-wind could possibly be lifted off with an auto-pilot. But landing? No way. Too many variables.-z

Actually, auto-lands are commonplace nowadays. Not always possible, but certainly doable on many occasions (I remember back in 95 or 96 when flying into Denver the pilot announced after we landed that the plane had landed on its own)

Take offs, on the other hand, are far more challenging.

[Tmy]

Arent cockpit windsheilds polarized?

Can these lazers really cause any damage?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
If you do not see it, then you need to look again.

:rolleyes:

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/022102.html

Raytheon conducts successful flight test of global positioning system (GPS) precision landing system

MARLBORO, Mass., (Feb 21, 2002) - Raytheon Company successfully completed the first in a series of autoland flight tests using its Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) on January 17, 2002 at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, equipped with Rockwell-Collins GLU-920 Multi-Mode receivers (MMR) with GLS software, utilized differential GPS corrections and precision approach path data uplinked from a Raytheon RAYNAV-4100 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ground facility at the Salt Lake City Airport. A series of autocoupled (hands-off) approaches, through touchdown and rollout, were conducted using two different runways.

...

Of course, autolanding systems have been around for several years now, but 2002 just marks a milestone for the autoland system that Raytheon has been working on.

Oh well...never say never. I guess you learn something new everyday?

But Crossbow, would you want to be sitting in the cheap seats of a packed A340 knowing full well the ship is flying itself...with a bored care-taker "pilot" who maybe hasn't touched the controls in a long time? I envision Capt. Homer Simpson up there. :eek:

-z

[crackmonkey]

I work with commercial lasers. I'm not sure of the significance of the wavelength - I've heard talking heads on TV mention the fact that the lasers were green, as if this was notable... it's not. 532nm solid state green lasers are very common, and are used for a variety of purposes - power tends to be between 5 and 50mW both for CW and pulsed lasers. The older gas lasers - the HeNe and Argon - were bulkier and less reliable and are rapidly being replaced by the solid state lasers. There are a few 532nm laser pointers coming out as well - at least one that has a power of ~ 100mW (not my company - a firm in China makes these).

It sounds like an unlikely way to disable an aircraft for all the reasons stated earlier... polarized glasses, however, is no protection against a laser of any strength. Special pritective glasses are required.

[c0rbin]

Aren't lasers used to "paint" targets for guided missles?

[crackmonkey]

Some are - I believe they're generally in the IR wavelengths, though.