I always knew Maryland was a hotbed for homegrown terrorism.

air_wx: Could someone, preferably Subby, explain the reason for the stupid tag? Personally, I would rather have the cockpit crew on a flight I'm on focusing on the landing checklist and maintaining situational awareness instead of having to wait minutes for their eyes to readjust to the darkness after someone shines a bright laser in their eyes.

Because they are stupid whinging farks [normally police pilots or police-contracted pilots - surprise surprise] and the safety angle is a steaming lode which translates to SHOW US MORE RESPECT WAAAH!

air_wx: having to wait minutes for their eyes to readjust to the darkness after someone shines a bright laser in their eyes.

Hirp dirp.

Leskay: air_wx: having to wait minutes for their eyes to readjust to the darkness after someone shines a bright laser in their eyes.

Hirp dirp.

unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

/nevermind tracking multiple targets (both the eyes of the copilot as well)

I have a gun in my room. Give me five seconds, I'll come back and blow their brains out.

People on the ground think they're all tough because they're interfering with the police, but they don't realize that if they keep it up, the police departments are going to invest in unmanned surveilance, and then all the obnoxius drug-abusing date-raping tough guys are going to be up the creek.

Well, the long-term situation isn't good.

There are progressively larger and larger low-cost "toy" lasers, recently WickedLasers making the 1W $200 "toy" that can scorch things.

This is just going to continue as lasers get bigger AND cheaper.

Technically, there IS a ban on unlicensed handheld lasers over 5mW. But they're pretty common and there's an endless supply of products which use powerful laser heads to hack them out of even if you cracked down on WickedLasers et al. It's just impractical because you can sell a housing that a huge laser from a particular BluRay DVD fits right into, and then sell separately a fully legal replacement laser made for that BluRay DVD. It's not their fault if the customer decides to move that laser into the housing instead of repairing a BluRay DVD player.

/50mW green is awesome enough for me

Vertdang

unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here.

These are drunk frat boys aiming lasers at what they think are police and news helicopters (though they are often medical helicopters, but the drunk frat boys don't care). The helicopters are moving slowly at a relatively low altitude since they're doing surveilance, and it's not to hard to aim it into the cockpit.

A fairly high-power laser only needs to glance briefly by the eye to interfere with a pilot's vision for minutes, same as you might glance at the sun and it might take a few minutes to lose the image of the sun. A glance of the laser won't wholly blind the pilot but it's not a safe condition while flying.

Who will glance at my mum?

aerojockey: Vertdang

unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here.

These are drunk frat boys aiming lasers at what they think are police and news helicopters (though they are often medical helicopters, but the drunk frat boys don't care). The helicopters are moving slowly at a relatively low altitude since they're doing surveilance, and it's not to hard to aim it into the cockpit.


Medical helicopters do surveillance?

aerojockey: Vertdang

unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here.

These are drunk frat boys aiming lasers at what they think are police and news helicopters (though they are often medical helicopters, but the drunk frat boys don't care). The helicopters are moving slowly at a relatively low altitude since they're doing surveilance, and it's not to hard to aim it into the cockpit.

A fairly high-power laser only needs to glance briefly by the eye to interfere with a pilot's vision for minutes, same as you might glance at the sun and it might take a few minutes to lose the image of the sun. A glance of the laser won't wholly blind the pilot but it's not a safe condition while flying.

The solution is obvious - it's time the police were given the same ability to defend themselves as the military.

Assistant_Madman:
The solution is obvious - it's time the police were given the same ability to defend themselves as the military.

Actually, just the opposite: The police should be legally restricted to exactly the same kinds of weapons used by the general public.

There really is no need for the police to use machine guns*. There is no tactical situation they are going to face where using a full auto is superior to semi-auto fire, and I say that with events like the Waco Siege and the North Hollywood shootout firmly in mind.

*Yes, machine guns are legal in some states, but they are highly restricted federally. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if the police were required to follow the same rules as the general citizenry of their state.

it's a good thing cars aren't affected by this or we'd have pileups across the country.

dittybopper: he police should be legally restricted to exactly the same kinds of weapons used by the general public.

Yes, because criminals would never use illegal weapons.

Raytheon should bring out a laser defense mini-missile. Then the idiots can either stop doing this, or they'll be destroyed - win/win.

TFA: In one case, the helicopter spotlighted the person and officers on the ground charged him with reckless endangerment and assault, police said.

I'll give you "reckless endangerment", as the safety angle honesty can't be overplayed enough under night flying conditions, but "assault"? Do we really want to make it a crime to shine lights at people (as opposed to shining lights at pilots under very specific circumstances)?

natedogtx: dittybopper: he police should be legally restricted to exactly the same kinds of weapons used by the general public.

Yes, because criminals would never use illegal weapons.

So? Think of the liability issues with using full-auto. Think of the innocents that could be put in danger.

And I would point out that in at least one case where the police went up against criminals using body armor and full-auto weaponry, it was mostly aimed semi-automatic rifle fire that killed the bad guys, not full-auto. If the patrol officers in that incident had each had even a Winchester 94 in .30-30, or a bolt-action rifle in .308 Winchester (or a .243 Winchester or 7.62x39mm for the recoil sensitive), that body armor worn by the bank robbers wouldn't have protected them. They would have been stopped much sooner.

There just is no need for it. In situations where a submachine gun might seem warranted, a semi-auto or pump shotgun is easily substituted. And there is *NO* reason for a police officer to ever need a full-auto rifle. Period. A reasonably powerful semi-automatic rifle is perfectly adequate for any and all situations a police officer is going to face, including going up against criminals using actual machine guns.

The military is a different story, with a much different mission: Their job is to kill people and break things, not arrest and/or stop criminals. You militarize the police by giving them military equipment, then you are just asking for problems.

Meh!

Blinding pilots with laser pointers is SOOOOO last decade!

just to prove that idiots are spread all around the globe, we have had exactly the same story about blinding lasers in Switzerland. Mostly medical helicopters, but also airplanes on landing approaches.
Morans.

buddyrtr: Raytheon should bring out a laser defense mini-missile. Then the idiots can either stop doing this, or they'll be destroyed - win/win.

What happens if, when I see the launch (and I will see it because I'm looking at the damned helicopter), I just turn off the laser and run away? What if I stand outside the backdoor of a neighbor I hate, flash the helicopter with a laser, wait for the launch, then turn off the laser and run away?

Vertdang: Leskay: air_wx: having to wait minutes for their eyes to readjust to the darkness after someone shines a bright laser in their eyes.

Hirp dirp.

unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

/nevermind tracking multiple targets (both the eyes of the copilot as well)

Oh lord, are we going to have this damn argument again.


1) Cheap handheld lasers disperse, so you're not tracking a "1 inch target".

2) Cockpit windows have lots of scratches which create scattering when hit by a monochromatic light source.

3) Night vision goggles saturate.

4) People shining lasers at aircraft are morans.

Are we done now?

Well, while I recognize the diffuser-windshield issue, I still think we should voluntold these laser-douches into the armed forces, because even a target three feet across has got to be difficult to hit that far away moving at that speed.

I just think it's BS that I can't buy a moderately powerful (I was thinking 100mw-ish) laser because of something some idiot did that I'd never even think of doing, but as someone else mentioned, I can buy all the constituent parts no problem.

Also, 1W laser for 200 bucks? Link!

This has happened before (new window)

Arent lasers are protected under the Second Amendment?

FTA: An explosion in laser pointers in Ocean City this summer...

Wait, your normal, everyday consumer laser pointer is powerful enough to shine a beam into a cockpit that's hundreds of feet in the air and going over 100 mph?

Pilot was last seen in a theater yelling "That's gotta hurt!"

/Look! It's on the bald guy.

Good thing they are nowhere close to this guy's place...

Oznog: There are progressively larger and larger low-cost "toy" lasers, recently WickedLasers making the 1W $200 "toy" that can scorch things.

The wickedlasers 1W laser can instantly and permanently blind you through direct beam exposure. Exposure to a reflection of the beam or it's diffuse light is allowable for 0.25 seconds when wearing appropriate safety gear.

/no it's not a toy at all.

dittybopper: buddyrtr: Raytheon should bring out a laser defense mini-missile. Then the idiots can either stop doing this, or they'll be destroyed - win/win.

What happens if, when I see the launch (and I will see it because I'm looking at the damned helicopter), I just turn off the laser and run away? What if I stand outside the backdoor of a neighbor I hate, flash the helicopter with a laser, wait for the launch, then turn off the laser and run away?

At Mach 3, it'll get both of you - still win/win.

Ambusticated: Arent lasers are protected under the Second Amendment?

Depends.

Even if they are protected, though, the Supreme Court has said that you couldn't ban them, but "The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on ... laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings".

Restrictions on HOW you could use them could be quite constitutional under current Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the same reason why laws against the discharge of a firearm in a city are constitutional*.

*As long as there are exceptions for ranges, firing in self-defense, etc.

buddyrtr: dittybopper: buddyrtr: Raytheon should bring out a laser defense mini-missile. Then the idiots can either stop doing this, or they'll be destroyed - win/win.

What happens if, when I see the launch (and I will see it because I'm looking at the damned helicopter), I just turn off the laser and run away? What if I stand outside the backdoor of a neighbor I hate, flash the helicopter with a laser, wait for the launch, then turn off the laser and run away?

At Mach 3, it'll get both of you - still win/win.

Fair enough. What if I simply point it at a neighbors house instead? It will then track on the brightest spot it sees, which will be the reflection off the house of the neighbor whose dogs bark at all hours of the night.

I'll just set this down right here.

FARK, I am dissapoint.

I think the stupid tag is for the idiots shining the lasers. Look morons, laser pointers were cool TEN YEARS AGO. And please stop bringing them to concerts. They aren't cool and never will be.

Mr.Poops: I think the stupid tag is for the idiots shining the lasers. Look morons, laser pointers were cool TEN YEARS AGO. And please stop bringing them to concerts. They aren't cool and never will be.

My cat thinks otherwise.

Vertdang: Leskay: air_wx: having to wait minutes for their eyes to readjust to the darkness after someone shines a bright laser in their eyes.

Hirp dirp.

unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

/nevermind tracking multiple targets (both the eyes of the copilot as well)

Cool-is this one of those threads where someone who has never flown an aircraft or seen the effects that a laser has on a scratched canopy comes in and spews ignorance as if it were fact?

And to Leskay, you do understand how the human eye works, right? After being dazzled, the pilot will lose the ability to see things in low light as theirpupil contracts to protect the retina from the light. So, a couple ofminutes to see dim instruments or see outside the canopy is not unrealistic. Try this, go camping. Walk away from the camp site about 100 yards under a quarter moon. Plenty of light to see by. Now, shine your flashlight in your eyes for 1 second. Tell me how easy it is to see after that.

Mr.Poops: I think the stupid tag is for the idiots shining the lasers. Look morons, laser pointers were cool TEN YEARS AGO. And please stop bringing them to concerts. They aren't cool and never will be.

Frickin' lasers don't jump the sharks, they're attached to the sharks' heads!

dittybopper: natedogtx: dittybopper: he police should be legally restricted to exactly the same kinds of weapons used by the general public.

Yes, because criminals would never use illegal weapons.

So? Think of the liability issues with using full-auto. Think of the innocents that could be put in danger.

And I would point out that in at least one case where the police went up against criminals using body armor and full-auto weaponry, it was mostly aimed semi-automatic rifle fire that killed the bad guys, not full-auto. If the patrol officers in that incident had each had even a Winchester 94 in .30-30, or a bolt-action rifle in .308 Winchester (or a .243 Winchester or 7.62x39mm for the recoil sensitive), that body armor worn by the bank robbers wouldn't have protected them. They would have been stopped much sooner.

There just is no need for it. In situations where a submachine gun might seem warranted, a semi-auto or pump shotgun is easily substituted. And there is *NO* reason for a police officer to ever need a full-auto rifle. Period. A reasonably powerful semi-automatic rifle is perfectly adequate for any and all situations a police officer is going to face, including going up against criminals using actual machine guns.

The military is a different story, with a much different mission: Their job is to kill people and break things, not arrest and/or stop criminals. You militarize the police by giving them military equipment, then you are just asking for problems.

I know you meant well, but the reason that the LAPD didn't use automatic weapons against the the pair was solely because they didn't have any.

Also, FYI, if the cars had been equipped with a full auto rifle (M-16, but heavier is better), they wouldn't have taken so many casualties in dropping those two clowns.

But for that matter, having an old M-1 Garand in the trunk would have done the trick, too. Neither bandit wore armor sufficient to stop a .308 or 30-06.

Approves.

Leskay: ...the safety angle is a steaming lode which translates to SHOW US MORE RESPECT WAAAH!


What kind of ore is steaming?

justSTFU:
I know you meant well, but the reason that the LAPD didn't use automatic weapons against the the pair was solely because they didn't have any.

Generally, the patrol cops at the time only had their handguns and some had shotguns, neither of which was sufficient. The SWAT team that showed up *DID* have M-16s, though, and one of the bad guys was brought down by fire from one of them, although I don't *THINK* it was used full-auto.


Also, FYI, if the cars had been equipped with a full auto rifle (M-16, but heavier is better), they wouldn't have taken so many casualties in dropping those two clowns.

But for that matter, having an old M-1 Garand in the trunk would have done the trick, too. Neither bandit wore armor sufficient to stop a .308 or 30-06.

Even just having a semi-auto Mini-14 or AR-15 semi-auto only rifle in their trunks would have sufficient, although I would want something with a bit more oomph to it.

But my point stands: There is *NO* reason why civilian police need full-auto weaponry, even SWAT teams. They may try to say that they need to match the firepower of potential opponents, but that's not actually true. Well-aimed semi-auto fire will win out over full-auto under any scenario the police will face.

Police and Military do not use full auto. 3 round bursts. Saves ammo.

"unless you have some computerized tracking system that is designed to hit a 1 inch target (the eye) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour (the plane) I don't think anyone has anything to worry about."

Obvioulsy, you aren't a pilot. I am. The kiddies laser tag plans coming in for a landing, that are taxing or just taken off -- a time when they aren't moving hundreds of miles per hour at altitude. It's very easy to tag an aircraft.

However, it is a felony offense to do this, so when the little brats are caught, though their butts in jail.

You know, it is a good thing that even slightly competent people don't want to shine lasers at airplanes. It isn't *that* hard to build a multi-watt IR laser.

Though, somehow I trust the "Laser pointers are dangerous offensive anti-pilot weapons" as much as I trust the "You can build an anti-air missile with a 3 mile range from Estes model rocket engines."

Jormungandr: You know, it is a good thing that even slightly competent people don't want to shine lasers at airplanes. It isn't *that* hard to build a multi-watt IR laser.

Though, somehow I trust the "Laser pointers are dangerous offensive anti-pilot weapons" as much as I trust the "You can build an anti-air missile with a 3 mile range from Estes model rocket engines."

You can do it with some of the larger model rocket motors. Go to Youtube and search for LDRS.

dittybopper:
You can do it with some of the larger model rocket motors. Go to Youtube and search for LDRS.

Though I should point out they aren't using Estes motors.