California Man gets 14 years for lasing aircraft

Sterling Archer

Not sure it is been posted of discussed before but here's the story

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/11/california-man-walloped-with-14-year-sentence-for-shining-laser-at-helicopter

It's on multiple sites by now each with their own variation

A federal judge ordered 26-year-old Sergio Rodriguez to spend the next 14 years in prison, for “lasing” a police helicopter as a national crackdown on people who point lasers at aircraft intensifies.

At least 3,960 laser attacks were reported in 2013

knucklehead6

Shane_ef wrote: »

Not sure it is been posted of discussed before but here's the story

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/11/california-man-walloped-with-14-year-sentence-for-shining-laser-at-helicopter

It's on multiple sites by now each with their own variation

Good enough for the fcker

islanderre

Was arriving into Birmingham last month on Aer Arann ATR42 and few miles out some gobsh1te(s) was shining a green laser @ the aircraft....... wish these headers would get a good kick up the jackie for that carry on.... think I read here on another forum that it occasionally happens @ Dublin airport too.

MagicMarker

I wonder what his sentence would be if he was white?

Jack1985

They should be stood behind aircraft, then the pilot who was lasered should be allowed to throttle up fully and then fairf*cks to the litte runt.

Peregrine

Good.

Hopefully there will be more of these kind of sentences everywhere.

View Profile

Bit harsh giving him 14 years but then again if he is dumb enough to shine a laser at a police chopper then he probably deserves it.

I think a lot of people who carry out "laser attacks" are fairly oblivious to its effects.
Maybe a public information campaign should run now and again on TV highlighting its dangers to aircraft and warning of prosecution!

Tabnabs

A horrendously stupid act and deserves punishing.

I first read it as lashing and thought he'd done a salvage job like these lads infamously did;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553244/Why-lost-jet-pilot-took-ride-on-container-ship.html

dilallio

I was driving in Cranford (near Heathrow's Eastern Perimeter Rd) about 3 years ago about 8pm (it was dark) and a group of idiots were letting off fireworks into the path of aircraft which were landing and less than 50 metres from the ground.

That would be a horrible situation for any pilot.

I called the police but they were gone before the police arrived.

Cessna_Pilot

Approach into two different London airports last summer late at night we had green lasers shone into the flight deck. Also on approach in Dublin early on this year, a laser shone from Portmarnock illuminated the cockpit. 14 years isn't enough for the scumbag.

Popoutman

Bit excessive.

This situation is more of a warning to others about trying the same, as opposed to a just sentence for the offence.

Note that his sentence is almost the same as that for second degree murder.

I don't think that the sentence is proportional to the crime.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

vicwatson

Happens here? 14 weeks suspended sentence

feargale

Who sells these lasers?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

feargale

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Ebay.

It shouldn't be beyond law enforcement to take care of that.

wil

Would someone care to describe the effects/potential effects, for the record.
If it is happening that often, some form of Public awareness campaign seems sensible (provided it isn't counter productive)

obplayer

wil wrote: »

Would someone care to describe the effects/potential effects, for the record.
If it is happening that often, some form of Public awareness campaign seems sensible (provided it isn't counter productive)

Of blinding a pilot, even for a few seconds? How many potential effects would you like, from crashing the aircraft onwards?

A public awareness campaign without severe sentences is pointless, without those sentences it will just make them think 'I could do that!!!'.

obplayer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I really hope not.

obplayer

Popoutman wrote: »

Bit excessive.

This situation is more of a warning to others about trying the same, as opposed to a just sentence for the offence.

Note that his sentence is almost the same as that for second degree murder.

I don't think that the sentence is proportional to the crime.

Quote from the Judge

'U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neill called Rodriguez a "walking crime spree" at sentencing, citing probation violations and alleged gang ties.'

Having previous violations will always increase your sentence; thankfully.

IRLConor

feargale wrote: »

It shouldn't be beyond law enforcement to take care of that.

Banning things because a tiny proportion of their owners do criminal things with them is stupid. It's expensive in legislative time and it doesn't ever solve the problem.

Sterling Archer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That story said they expect he'll get 12 years on appeal.

They are really trying to make an example of him, and make a statement that this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated, although i do get the feeling that they have been waiting for the "right" person to commit the crime so a heavy sentence like this can be justified, e.g. the judges

walking crime spree

statement

Popoutman

Based on my lasers, I did some quick calculations on the strength of dazzle that would be typical from the €10 ebay lasers.

My lasers are a pair of 532nm green at 5mw, and a pair of 405nm violet/near-UV also at 5mw. I use them for astronomical pointing and as a finder on my telescopes.

The typical divergence of these lasers that I have is about an 80cm wide beam at 1km distance, measured by illuminating a derelict building at night with the pointer on a tripod while looking at the illuminated spot with a telescope.

Looking up some comparisons with torches and searchlights, there's no way for a person to be blinded at a few hundred metres distance with a 5mw laser. The 0.25lux distance (equivalent to candlelight illumination at 2m, and references in the ANSI spec for flashlights) for my 532nm lasers is somewhere at about 4km with a 3.2m circle, compared to about 400m with a ~20m circle for Maglite LED D-Cell torches, so the pointer , on-axis and directly illuminated is about 100x more intense than a Maglite torch, for that 3m circle at the same distance. Let's take the numbers for an easily available car headlight bulb in a good housing, Using a best case there with a 12v 35w HID bulb giving 3300 lumens and with a beam size of 5 degrees the 0.25 lux distance is 1.5km (that's a beam size that's about 3 fingertips wide when held at arms length). The laser has a beam intensity abut 7 times brighter than that car headlight bulb but over a much narrower beam width.

So, let's take some test cases. Let's compare someone on an airfield perimeter (300m from the plane) shining at the aircraft with a Maglite torch, to someone on the approach path lets say 3km out from the airfield (4km from the plane) shining with a handheld laser pointer. The illumination inside a cockpit on approach to the airfield will be about the same, with the only differences being that the laser will be a pure colour compared to the pure white of that Maglite torch, and that the laser brightness will fluctuate a lot more than the torchlight would given the smallness of the beam size of the laser. The headlight bulb holder would have the same illumination when a kilometre out from the airfield (1500m from the aircraft), but would have a much easier time holding the beam on target.

Comparing to aircraft at cruise altitude, 11km up and let's say 20km away from the light holder. The laser's illumination at that distance would be a lot less than a candle seen from 2m away so there would be no issue with a 5mw laser being pointed at an aircraft at cruise altitude. It would be not far off an ordinary car seen from about two miles away, or the planet Jupiter

Please note that I am not condoning the pointing of lasers at aircraft - far from it - but it's always worth having a realistic appreciation of the issue. I completely appreciate the loss of night vision on approach and the fraction of a second needed to process the new situation, when a pilot would not need the extra workload. But there is certainly an element of hysteria about the issue.

Frank Lee Midere

You're assuming very far distances there. They try and blind the pilots on landing.

BeardySi

Or usually the Police choppers in these parts.... You're also assuming a max of 5mW (the legal limit for import of these into the UK, no idea about Ireland). Stronger lasers are easily gotten on the continent and from asia...

Outkast_IRE

Have seen this from a flight just after taking off from Alicante airport too.
I would imagine it happens at most airports unfortunately.

Growler!!!

A laser attack is like someone randomly shouting in your ear on the approach and is very distracting at a critical phase of flight when the mind should be focused on getting the passengers on the ground safety.

Popoutman

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

You're assuming very far distances there. They try and blind the pilots on landing.

That's the maglite at airport perimeter distance I was trying for. I was living under the approach path to Galway airport at one stage, so I've got a fairly good appreciation for the distances possible to an aircraft on approach. Lowest approaches were well less than 100m altitude above the house.

One of the points I was trying to get across was to get valid brightness comparisons between the laser beam and things that people would be used to. The best Maglite at 100m would be the same as the cheapy €10 Ebay green laser at a kilometre. Bright enough to be attention grabbing but not bright enough to damage; but anything unnecessarily attention-grabbing during the approach phase is not welcome.

The points about the higher-wattage lasers are valid - but they are already illegal as shipped as they are class 3 or higher and do not have the interlocking switches etc. There's no need for any extra laws to cover them, only correct enforcement of the current legislation. The use of higher powered lasers to distract would already be covered as far as I know, but I'm well open to correction on that one. I made the comparisons given the hardware that I already own.

ProfessorPlum

Popoutman wrote: »

Based on my lasers, I did some quick calculations on the strength of dazzle that would be typical from the €10 ebay lasers.

My lasers are a pair of 532nm green at 5mw, and a pair of 405nm violet/near-UV also at 5mw. I use them for astronomical pointing and as a finder on my telescopes.

The typical divergence of these lasers that I have is about an 80cm wide beam at 1km distance, measured by illuminating a derelict building at night with the pointer on a tripod while looking at the illuminated spot with a telescope.

Looking up some comparisons with torches and searchlights, there's no way for a person to be blinded at a few hundred metres distance with a 5mw laser. The 0.25lux distance (equivalent to candlelight illumination at 2m, and references in the ANSI spec for flashlights) for my 532nm lasers is somewhere at about 4km with a 3.2m circle, compared to about 400m with a ~20m circle for Maglite LED D-Cell torches, so the pointer , on-axis and directly illuminated is about 100x more intense than a Maglite torch, for that 3m circle at the same distance. Let's take the numbers for an easily available car headlight bulb in a good housing, Using a best case there with a 12v 35w HID bulb giving 3300 lumens and with a beam size of 5 degrees the 0.25 lux distance is 1.5km (that's a beam size that's about 3 fingertips wide when held at arms length). The laser has a beam intensity abut 7 times brighter than that car headlight bulb but over a much narrower beam width.

So, let's take some test cases. Let's compare someone on an airfield perimeter (300m from the plane) shining at the aircraft with a Maglite torch, to someone on the approach path lets say 3km out from the airfield (4km from the plane) shining with a handheld laser pointer. The illumination inside a cockpit on approach to the airfield will be about the same, with the only differences being that the laser will be a pure colour compared to the pure white of that Maglite torch, and that the laser brightness will fluctuate a lot more than the torchlight would given the smallness of the beam size of the laser. The headlight bulb holder would have the same illumination when a kilometre out from the airfield (1500m from the aircraft), but would have a much easier time holding the beam on target.

Comparing to aircraft at cruise altitude, 11km up and let's say 20km away from the light holder. The laser's illumination at that distance would be a lot less than a candle seen from 2m away so there would be no issue with a 5mw laser being pointed at an aircraft at cruise altitude. It would be not far off an ordinary car seen from about two miles away, or the planet Jupiter

Please note that I am not condoning the pointing of lasers at aircraft - far from it - but it's always worth having a realistic appreciation of the issue. I completely appreciate the loss of night vision on approach and the fraction of a second needed to process the new situation, when a pilot would not need the extra workload. But there is certainly an element of hysteria about the issue.

Do you not believe that laser attacks can distract and even temporarily blind (not just loss of night vision) pilots and that it could have potentially devastating effects at such a critical stage of flight as approach and landing? There is nothing hysterical about it.

Popoutman

@professorplum - I take it you didn't actually read and comprehend my post then.

Let me repeat what I posted for you again:
"I completely appreciate the loss of night vision on approach and the fraction of a second needed to process the new situation, when a pilot would not need the extra workload."

I hope that clarifies my own views on it.

Some of the hysteria comes about when apparently-uninformed people such as yourself think that there is any actual blindness, temporary or otherwise, possible from a 5mw 532nm classIIb laser pointer at a significant distance of over e.g. a kilometre, other than the very temporary loss of dark adaptation. The light intensity is uncomfortable when dark-adapted but not actually intrinsically dangerous at that level.

The other hysteria is the clamouring for jail sentences that are greater than that of serious crimes against the person - there's no balance or evenness to those requests. Shining a laser at an aircraft is certainly not worth multi-year jail sentences for a first offence.

Peregrine

Popoutman wrote: »

Some of the hysteria comes about when apparently-uninformed people such as yourself

With all due respect, I'd say pilots are more informed on the actual effects than you or me.

ProfessorPlum

Popoutman wrote: »

@professorplum - I take it you didn't actually read and comprehend my post then.

Let me repeat what I posted for you again:
"I completely appreciate the loss of night vision on approach and the fraction of a second needed to process the new situation, when a pilot would not need the extra workload."

I hope that clarifies my own views on it.

Some of the hysteria comes about when apparently-uninformed people such as yourself think that there is any actual blindness, temporary or otherwise, possible from a 5mw 532nm classIIb laser pointer at a significant distance of over e.g. a kilometre, other than the very temporary loss of dark adaptation. The light intensity is uncomfortable when dark-adapted but not actually intrinsically dangerous at that level.

The other hysteria is the clamouring for jail sentences that are greater than that of serious crimes against the person - there's no balance or evenness to those requests. Shining a laser at an aircraft is certainly not worth multi-year jail sentences for a first offence.

Maybe you might read mine again? And try to comprehend what I have said.

obplayer

Popoutman wrote: »

@professorplum - I take it you didn't actually read and comprehend my post then.

Let me repeat what I posted for you again:
"I completely appreciate the loss of night vision on approach and the fraction of a second needed to process the new situation, when a pilot would not need the extra workload."

I hope that clarifies my own views on it.

Loss of night vision is effectively blinding for at least a few seconds, not 'a fraction of a second'. Try some tests, allow your eyes to adapt to low light, switch a light on and off and see how long it takes before you can see in low light again.

I hope that clarifies the reality of it.

Cessna_Pilot

Popoutman. Would you if I shone a laser into your eyes some dark night as you drive through a busy motorway junction?

newmug

MagicMarker wrote: »

I wonder what his sentence would be if he was white?

I'd say 14 years. Or if he was purple, probably 14 years aswell. But now if he was cyan.........


@ Popoutman, nobody is on about actually causing permanent blindness to the pilots, so saying your laser wont blind someone at x distance is a moot point. Your mobile going off wont deafen you, but it will sure p1ss you off when you're in the middle of a parallel park manoeuvre. Compare that to flying an aircraft.

MagicMarker

newmug wrote: »

I'd say 14 years. Or if he was purple, probably 14 years aswell. But now if he was cyan.........

Bless...

gctest50

Popoutman wrote: »

Some of the hysteria comes about when apparently-uninformed people such as yourself think that there is any actual blindness, temporary or otherwise, possible from a 5mw 532nm classIIb laser pointer at a significant distance of over e.g. a kilometre, other than the very temporary loss of dark adaptation. The light intensity is uncomfortable when dark-adapted but not actually intrinsically dangerous at that level.
...........

pointed a more powerful laser at a an emergency transport helicopter and then the at police helicopter that came to investigate :

The laser pointer that Rodriguez and Coleman used was 13 times more powerful than the permissible power emission level for hand-held laser devices.

Air 1 had responded to the apartment complex where Rodriguez and Coleman resided near the Fresno Yosemite International Airport to investigate the report of laser strikes on Air George, an emergency transport helicopter for Children’s Hospital of Central California

http://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2014/fresno-laser-striker-sentenced-to-14-years-in-prison

he forgot they'd be having infrared lol :

wil

obplayer wrote: »

Of blinding a pilot, even for a few seconds? How many potential effects would you like, from crashing the aircraft onwards?

A public awareness campaign without severe sentences is pointless, without those sentences it will just make them think 'I could do that!!!'.

You see that really wasn't what I was looking for.

obplayer wrote: »

Loss of night vision is effectively blinding for at least a few seconds, not 'a fraction of a second'. Try some tests, allow your eyes to adapt to low light, switch a light on and off and see how long it takes before you can see in low light again.

I hope that clarifies the reality of it.

Ok, thats a bit more informative.:)

However, public awareness could reach some places harsh sentences can't.
How many 12 yr olds have cheap lasers in their arsenal?


The op case is of a person with malicious intent and high power laser, so obviously the sentence is in line with the crime.

Popoutman

I'm not saying that the shining of lasers at aircraft on approach is a good thing or that it is without consequences. It's not as dangerous as some are making it out to be - mostly because pilots are skilled enough to be able to react correctly under pressure to a new and unexpected input. It's certainly something worth taking action over as it's not a good thing to happen to a pilot, but it's self-defeating to be disproportionate about the real effects of shining lasers at landing aircraft, and it's self-defeating to be disproportionate about the punishment involved.

Note as well that I have been specifically talking about the commonly-available 5mW laser pointers. The 0.1W and above pointers are a different story and those definitely need to better controlled for many reasons apart from idiots using them to illuminate planes on descent. At least the 5mW lasers are not bright enough to cause eye damage in casual use unless one is dumb enough to stare into the beam for a significant length of time overrriding the blink reflex.

obplayer wrote: »

Loss of night vision is effectively blinding for at least a few seconds, not 'a fraction of a second'. Try some tests, allow your eyes to adapt to low light, switch a light on and off and see how long it takes before you can see in low light again.

I'm been an astronomer for ~30 years, and I'm well aware of the effects of light on dark adaptation (probably a lot better than most on here), and how long it takes to recover to varying levels of dark adaptation. Seeing streetlights at a distance is instant after the light source goes, as would ground lights and other airport-related lights. The ability to read instruments that are correctly lit comes back to me within less than a second as the pupil starts to react to the darkness again. Seeing low-brightness high-contrast details on the ground (e.g. tarmac patterns) takes a few seconds for sure, and the low-brightness low-contrast details take longer as the rhodopsin reforms in the retina. I do know exactly how long it takes to see various things once I've been exposed to bright light when fully dark adapted, hence my position on this. As a point of reference, the level of dark adaptation when driving a car on an empty road at night is about the level of dark adaptation where the pupil is at its widest, but where the retina is not sensitised. That's a little less dark-adapted than an aircraft cockpit on approach, and certainly a lot less dark adapted away from all light sources except starlight for an hour or more.

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

Would you if I shone a laser into your eyes some dark night as you drive through a busy motorway junction?

Being realistic about it, at a decent distance of over 1km from the 5mw pointer, I get no disorientation, no physical pain, but I can still drive perfectly well and see other car headlights during that lasing period. Not an ideal situation for sure, but not a guaranteed crash situation. How do I know? I've had it happen to me driving on the M50. It was a surprise, but I did not feel anything other than surprised, and I was nowhere near falling off the road. I don't particularly want to go through it regularly, but it's at nuisance level as opposed to true immediate danger level. Maybe it's just my level of driving experience that did not lead to my feeling the need to take unnecessary action, but I'd expect the same from other experienced people in control of machinery including pilots.

(to clarify where I stand on the issue)
I do not want pilots to be startled by lasers when on approach. I don't want pilots to have to deal with that extra input during he most stressful and information-laden portion of the flight, and the riskiest time of the flight. Any additions to the situation on approach should be minimised as much as possible - no question about that.
However I do not want to see people sent down for unnecessarily long jail sentences either. We need to properly understand the nature of the effects of the crime, and fit the punishment appropriately. Certainly there should be a punishment for shining bright light of any type (be it searchlight, modified car headlight, laser pointer, whatever) at an aircraft on approach. I'm not disagreeing with that. Knee-jerk reactions and calling for unnecessarily heavy punishments will not aid getting the problem resolved. Banning laser pointers will not prevent the problem, nor will handing down unrealistic sentences. I'd like to hear what people would thing would work though?

(knowing that the OP's case is not a typical laser pointer as used in most pointer to plane illuminations, and that the intent was almost certainly malicious does put a differing spin on things for sure. In which case the offence he was charged with was not the one that he is being punished for..)

obplayer

Popoutman wrote: »

I'm been an astronomer for ~30 years, and I'm well aware of the effects of light on dark adaptation (probably a lot better than most on here), and how long it takes to recover to varying levels of dark adaptation.


unnecessarily heavy punishments will not aid getting the problem resolved.

Have you ever had to land a telescope while your night vision was gone?
Why would heavy punishments not aid in getting the problem resolved?
You are a classic example of ivory tower thinking; 'I can cope with some night vision loss so why should a pilot not be able to?' And "we mustn't punish people heavily, there must be a better way".
For putting life at deliberate, reckless and unnecessary risk heavy punishment is the way.

ProfessorPlum

Popoutman wrote: »

I'm not saying that the shining of lasers at aircraft on approach is a good thing or that it is without consequences. It's not as dangerous as some are making it out to be - mostly because pilots are skilled enough to be able to react correctly under pressure to a new and unexpected input.

The only skill I would have if blinded by a laser attack during the final stages of a manual approach, would be to hand over control to the other pilot and hope to hell that he hadn't been affected as well. No amount of skill and training can make me be able to fly blind!

Popoutman wrote: »

(knowing that the OP's case is not a typical laser pointer as used in most pointer to plane illuminations, and that the intent was almost certainly malicious does put a differing spin on things for sure. In which case the offence he was charged with was not the one that he is being punished for..)

From article linked by the OP:

"Rodriguez was arrested in 2012 and convicted in December 2013 of attempting to interfere with the operation of an aircraft, which comes with a maximum 20-year sentence"

Popoutman

Looks like this particular thread has had its day anyway. Typical of Boards

Personally I'm far from advocating the use of laser pointers against aircraft on approach. I'm simply pointing out that the hysteria (that appears to be prevalent here as well) is not entirely justified when compared with other crimes, and the heavy sentencing being sought recently by the Americans is not justifiable given the actual risk involved - not the perceived risk by people that do not actually understand what is involved.

I'm of the opinion that the standard 5mw pointers are not as dangerous as they are being made out to be, based on my personal experiences and my calculations. My experience is anecdotal, same as anyone else's, but the calculations stand by themselves - you can't disagree with the physics. It's always worth remembering that the high-power handheld lasers are already illegal under existing laws.

Here's a devil's advocate question to the prevalent groupthink seen on this thread: If the risk to the aircraft is so great, where are the crashes? Answer - there aren't any. I accept that there have been plenty of laser illuminations, some of which have caused uncomfortable moments for the pilots, and these are not acceptable in any way. There is certainly a risk but that risk is not as great as being portrayed, otherwise we would be seeing the consequences over and over already. There is a risk for sure for aircraft on approach, but zero risk for aircraft at cruise altitude from ordinary legal laser pointers.



---
@obplayer: I was specifically asked about my reaction to bright lights when dark adapted, so I don't see why you fail to accept that for what it is. Knowing exactly how the human vision system works under low-light conditions means that I can comment accurately on the effects. Being dazzled does not mean that my motor skills go out the window - and if yours do then I'd get professionally checked..
As for the level of punishment being looked for? The crime being committed pales into insignificance when compared with actual crimes against the body, so to seek equal punishment implies that the effects of the crimes are equal - and I challenge you to have that argument with a victim of a violent rape that shining a light at a plane is as pad as what happened to them.

---

I had hoped for a better discussion here of the actual effects of being on the receiving end of laser illuminations, and to see a bit of reality brought into what can be a rather emotive issue, but it's a pity that isn't the case at least in this thread.

I do not want any of us to be at risk from an idiot pointing a bright light at us on approach, and that there should be some form of punishment for deliberate offences of this type, with proper grading of the punishment relative to the actual risk involved and if it were a repeat offence. The punishment has to fit the crime for it to be realistic and equitable, and multi-year sentences do not appear to me to be realistic or equitable especially for a first offence. That's my opinion, and I've outlined in my previous posts what my opinion is based on. If you don't agree with it that's your prerogative for sure, but I'd like to hear realistic and non-emotive reasons why you think I'm not correct.

ProfessorPlum

Jez Popoutman, you really seem to know how to make friends and influence people! Hysteria, uninformed opinion, groupthink! Equating a laser attack to violent rape?? WTF?
Nobody here is advocating 14 year sentences for kids with weak pointers - the case in point was a high powered laser, capable of causing significant difficulty for the crews of both a medical transport aircraft and a police helicopter. The sentence was handed to an adult with a previous string of offenses.
Nobody really cares much about your telescopes or infact the biochemistry and biophysics of the human eye about which you are happy to flaunt your extensive knowledge here. In fact you might find that even 'knowing exactly how the normal vision works' can not allow you to comment accurately on the effects, as we are talking about humans here not machines, and each one of us may have a slightly different physiological response to the same stimulus - an in vivo as opposed to in vitro response. (I discovered that during my extensive studies in the subject, which btw included human vision, normal and otherwise).

It seems you are determined to wait for an aircraft to crash, which would have a very high chance of being a catastrophic and fatal event, before you would entertain the idea that there is a significant risk to aviation from laser attack, despite the fact that the FAA, the FBI, and every other Aviation Authority in who's territory I fly, seem to accept the threat as serious.
I am very relieved that the industry as a whole prefer to be proactive as opposed to reactive where safety is concerned.

Cessna_Pilot

On approach into another London airport this evening and had another laser 'attack'. At about 3 miles from touchdown. The other pilot called it "a potential act of terrorism". I concurred.

MagicMarker

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

On approach into another London airport this evening and had another laser 'attack'. At about 3 miles from touchdown. The other pilot called it "a potential act of terrorism". I concurred.

How did you survive?

KnotABother

If he did it to a passenger jet he might get 3 years but I would imagine that the fact is was a 'copter made it more serious as that is technically an assault on a police officer. His previous didn't help either I'd imagine.

Sadly this is the states...judges hand down crazy sentences and they are quietly reduced on appeal!