New Laws announced for those shining lasers at aircraft in Ireland

Jack1985

*€5,000 (accidental), €50,000 fine (serious)
*Upwards of 6 months (accidental), 5 years in prison (serious).

New laws from the DoT to be enacted. Great news!

mr.anonymous

Jack1985 wrote: »

*€5,000 (accidental), €50,000 fine (serious)
*Upwards of 6 months (accidental), 5 years in prison (serious).

New laws from the DoT to be enacted. Great news!

Very good to see this. I think it was kept quiet to avoid repeat incidents.

kub

Well the union rep on the news did not help with his 'they are hard to find' comment when asked about those doing it.

The other thing that annoys me is the way the punishment is worded 'up to' this, that and the other thing.
If some scrote is caught then automatically he should just get 6 months end of story. That example might create a deterrent.

Jack1985

Well the union rep on the news did not help with his 'they are hard to find' comment when asked about those doing it.

The IALPA rep hit it on the head tbh but we now have the law in-place and its practice needs to be taken seriously i.e. a pilot reports position and it is quickly acted upon (and that is still difficult for the Gardai to act upon).

If some scrote is caught then automatically he should just get 6 months end of story. That example might create a deterrent.

It is 6 months minimum varying upwards to 5 years but not below the minimum, I believe that is a deterrent.

fr336

What would accidental be? And does that mean a prison sentence? Undermines such a law for accidents to result in you being in a cell.

Jack1985

What would accidental be? And does that mean a prison sentence? Undermines such a law for accidents to result in you being in a cell.

There isn't much clarity yet but you could take anything from it really, it could be a first time doing it. And yes it does, to be honest I don't think deliberately shining an aircraft in a critical stage of flight can be taken as accidental and I'd have no issue with the scumbags being in a cell where they belong.

fr336

Jack1985 wrote: »

There isn't much clarity yet but you could take anything from it really, it could be a first time doing it. And yes it does, to be honest I don't think deliberately shining an aircraft in a critical stage of flight can be taken as accidental and I'd have no issue with the scumbags being in a cell where they belong.

Well surely if they're saying accidental they mean accidental and not deliberate? Say you're carelessly (even drunkedly!) messing about with your laser outdoors and it almost brought down a plane..you'd need learning but you didn't deliberately do it. Though as a deterrent I guess prison is the easiest one all round.

Jack1985

Well surely if they're saying accidental they mean accidental and not deliberate? Say you're carelessly (even drunkedly!) messing about with your laser outdoors and it almost brought down a plane..you'd need learning but you didn't deliberately do it.

That's like saying I'll accidentally wave a gun in your face but if it goes off than woops accident, to me thats careless and its for that reason they have included a minimum prison penalty which I applaud them for. Accidental or not there is no need to be doing it, but by law of course they have to cater for the less than responsible who are involved in accidents.

fr336

Jack1985 wrote: »

That's like saying I'll accidentally wave a gun in your face but if it goes off than woops accident, to me thats careless and its for that reason they have included a minimum prison penalty which I applaud them for.

What an hilarious comparison :D:D I agree it's careless, but it's nothing like waving a gun at someone.

Jack1985

fr336 wrote: »

What an hilarious comparison :D:D I agree it's careless, but it's nothing like waving a gun at someone.

Well its endangering say in a full FR flight, 195 people, so I couldn't care if they do it accidentally, a gun accident can kill one a laser shone deliberately and say it incapacitated the crew could kill 195 people (far fetched but hey were dealing with law here) - fairly big accident.

fr336

Jack1985 wrote: »

Well its endangering say in a full FR flight, 195 people, so I couldn't care if they do it accidental, a gun accident can kill one a laser shone deliberately and say it incapacitated the crew could kill 195 people (far fetched but hey were dealing with law here) - fairly big ******g accident.

Agreed in the main - and in the case of the ones who do it deliberately - well I'd have them on a terrorist watchlist what is the difference really :pac:

Jack1985

and in the case of the ones who do it deliberately - well I'd have them on a terrorist watchlist what is the difference really

Hit the nail on the head!

andy_g

Jack1985 wrote: »

Well its endangering say in a full FR flight, 195 people,

Im really glad we cant carry that many people onboard at any one time

fr336

andy_g wrote: »

Im really glad we cant carry that many people onboard at any one time

?

2 stroke

This was subject of conversation earlier this evening, I had previously heard it was a problem, but most of the group were shocked, saying that their kids were often playing with them seeing how far the beam is visible and that if a plane flies over, naturally they were going to point at it. Which raised the question, at what distance is this a risk? I know its a problem for helicopters and planes landing/taking off, but what about planes at 5,000 to 40,000 feet?
I know this is a serious problem but I see a need for removing these pointers from toy shops and educating the general public here, rather than deciding to set an example of someone.

Jack1985

Im really glad we cant carry that many people onboard at any one time

189 pax and 6 crew? ahem..

andy_g

better

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

189 pax and 6 crew? ahem..

189 pax, 18 infants, 6 crew and 4 jumpseats...ahem

Jack1985

189 pax, 18 infants, 6 crew and 4 jumpseats...ahem

No need to go ott billie it was just an example haha

fr336

billie1b wrote: »

189 pax, 18 infants, 6 crew and 4 jumpseats...ahem

And 189 EI employees choosing the better option :pac:

fr336

I'm still confused Andy..though this seems to be my general state at the moment

expectationlost

New laws on the way to outlaw shining laser beams at aircraft http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2014/0425/20568680-new-laws-on-the-way-to-outlaw-shining-laser-beams-at-aircraft/

158 incidents reported last year

https://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=laser+site%3Awww.dttas.ie%2F#hl=en&q=laser+attacks+site:www.dttas.ie%2F long time coming

Pilots report huge rise in laser attacks on planes http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pilots-report-huge-rise-in-laser-attacks-on-planes-26622842.html

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

No need to go ott billie it was just an example haha

Not OTT, just giving you all the figures, weight wise, it'd be about 59,000kg DOW with all adults

Jack1985

Not OTT, just giving you all the figures, weight wise, it'd be about 59,000kg DOW with all adults

True but again I just gave an example using seat capacity only (i.e. total sold cabin seats to paying adults and standard 6 crew)

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

True but again I just gave an example using seat capacity only

There are 199 seats on an FR 738

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

True but again I just gave an example using seat capacity only (i.e. total sold cabin seats to paying adults and standard 6 crew)

Total seats sold to revenue pax is 193

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

*€5,000 (accidental), €50,000 fine (serious)
*Upwards of 6 months (accidental), 5 years in prison (serious).

New laws from the DoT to be enacted. Great news!

The different treatment is not is the crime accidental or serious, its is it summary or serious.

The definition of the crime is

A person who deliberately or recklessly directs or shines a light at or in the direction of

(a) a pilot or co-pilot of an aircraft,
(b) a person involved in the operation of the flight of an aircraft, or
(c) a person carrying out air traffic control services,
so that the light may dazzle, distract or confuse the pilot or person in the performance of his or her duties commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment— 5
(i) where the person is an individual – to a fine not exceeding €50,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both, or
(ii) where the person is a body corporate – to a fine not exceeding €250,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

An offence could be reckless and be tried on indictment or it could be deliberate and tried in the District Court.

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

The IALPA rep hit it on the head tbh but we now have the law in-place and its practice needs to be taken seriously i.e. a pilot reports position and it is quickly acted upon (and that is still difficult for the Gardai to act upon).



It is 6 months minimum varying upwards to 5 years but not below the minimum, I believe that is a deterrent.

It is not a minimum penalty, in the DC the max is six months, but could be just a fine or even loss. In the Circuit a Court the max is 5 years but again could be less including no time.

Jack1985

2 stroke wrote: »

This was subject of conversation earlier this evening, I had previously heard it was a problem, but most of the group were shocked, saying that their kids were often playing with them seeing how far the beam is visible and that if a plane flies over, naturally they were going to point at it. Which raised the question, at what distance is this a risk? I know its a problem for helicopters and planes landing/taking off, but what about planes at 5,000 to 40,000 feet?
I know this is a serious problem but I see a need for removing these pointers from toy shops and educating the general public here, rather than deciding to set an example of someone.

It's like everything really, you'll always have someone who uses something that has a use for an inappropriate use a bit like those toy pellet guns. I can see why parents would be alarmed, but how about warn kids that it's as dangerous as playing with a live gun? Same thing really. I had a chat with a pilot recently who was lasered a while back on approach to Cork, he was passing 1,800ft and literally for a brief while got that motion in your eyes where you see a light path if that makes sense i.e. cloudy vision briefly and it scared him but as quickly as it he noticed it, it had gone. So for me from that point on because of directly hearing about it I regarded it as a serious thing, pre that I used to think it was dramatic but to me now its anything of the sort.

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

There isn't much clarity yet but you could take anything from it really, it could be a first time doing it. And yes it does, to be honest I don't think deliberately shining an aircraft in a critical stage of flight can be taken as accidental and I'd have no issue with the scumbags being in a cell where they belong.

Accidental is the wrong word the test is "deliberately or recklessly" accidental is I never thought it could cause a problem, reckless is I thought it may not but I don't care.

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

That's like saying I'll accidentally wave a gun in your face but if it goes off than woops accident, to me thats careless and its for that reason they have included a minimum prison penalty which I applaud them for. Accidental or not there is no need to be doing it, but by law of course they have to cater for the less than responsible who are involved in accidents.

No waving a gun in a persons face is reckless. In any event there is no minimum sentence.

Jack1985

No waving a gun in a persons face is reckless.

And shining a laser into the flight deck during a critical stage of flight is not reckless?

fr336

Jack1985 wrote: »

Hey Pro Hoc Vice, cheers for the legal tips, back to topic? :P

Bit rude Jack, I'd say it was well and truly on topic.

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

Hey Pro Hoc Vice, cheers for the legal tips, back to topic? :P



And shining a laser into the flight deck during a critical stage of flight is not reckless?

I never said it was either. But let's take two examples,

1 a persons waves a laser at a plane approaching a airport for landing, that's reckless or maybe deliberate in fact.

2 a person is setting up a outdoor light show but is not aware its on a flight path, depending on all the facts that may or may not be reckless.

BTW being the only poster who actually located the law I think I'm very much on topic, surprised no one bothered to even look up the bill, but here it is http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2014/3514/b3514s.pdf section 43.

Jack1985

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I never said it was either. But let's take two examples,

1 a persons waves a laser at a plane approaching a airport for landing, that's reckless or maybe deliberate in fact.

2 a person is setting up a outdoor light show but is not aware its on a flight path, depending on all the facts that may or may not be reckless.

BTW being the only poster who actually looted the law I think I'm very much on topic, surprised no one bothered to even look up the bill, but here it is http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/b...514/b3514s.pdf section 43.

True, very good examples. I suppose that's why there is two sides to all arguments. Thanks for the bill link, I hadn't looked at it just heard the fine details on the radio and yes on-topic, apologies

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

True, very good examples. I suppose that's why there is two sides to all arguments. Thanks for the bill link, I hadn't looked at it just heard the fine details on the radio.

Taking legal information from the news media is like getting your diet and healthy eating advice from Ronald McDonald while its easy and fun not very good for you.

bassy

must be some laser to hit on a plane a few miles up in the sky.
sure the plane is hardly gonna crash,not like its a car on a main road or motorway where there could be a instant crash.

Jack1985

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Taking legal information from the news media is like getting your diet and healthy eating advice from Ronald McDonald while its easy and fun not very good for you.

Haha very true, anything usually aviation related on the media I stay well clear!

expectationlost

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I never said it was either. But let's take two examples,

1 a persons waves a laser at a plane approaching a airport for landing, that's reckless or maybe deliberate in fact.

2 a person is setting up a outdoor light show but is not aware its on a flight path, depending on all the facts that may or may not be reckless.

BTW being the only poster who actually located the law I think I'm very much on topic, surprised no one bothered to even look up the bill, but here it is http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2014/3514/b3514s.pdf section 43.

ah they put it into the State Airports (Shannon Group) Bill 2014 http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=25931&&CatID=59 RTE could have said that

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2014/3514/b3514s-memo.pdf this is the explanation

Prohibition on dazzling aircraft
Section 43
provides for it to be an offence to deliberately or
recklessly dazzle or distract a pilot or other relevant personnel by
directing a light in their direction. This is intended to deal with
incidents of persons using a laser to dazzle or attempt to dazzle the
pilot of an aircraft or other aviation personnel

Pro Hoc Vice

bassy wrote: »

must be some laser to hit on a plane a few miles up in the sky.
sure the plane is hardly gonna crash,not like its a car on a main road or motorway where there could be a instant crash.

I assume the problem is when a plane is on approach, a pilot blind even for a few seconds when he is a few hundred feet from landing could be a serious issue.

fr336

bassy wrote: »

must be some laser to hit on a plane a few miles up in the sky.
sure the plane is hardly gonna crash,not like its a car on a main road or motorway where there could be a instant crash.

It increases the risk to the flight, either by a bit or a lot. There should be as little risk as possible when flying.

Jack1985

As per the post above, in aviation its better to not base possible events on the probability of hardly but the actual probability of it definitely happening and in this case airlines can't stop it as its individuals partaking in it so law agencies need to sort it out the best they can.

Also, are we one of the first EU countries to bring forward legislation on this in Europe?

expectationlost

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pilots-report-huge-rise-in-laser-attacks-on-planes-26622842.html

DANGEROUS lasers were targeted at almost 30 planes from one Irish airline which were trying to land at Dublin Airport last year. And the garda helicopter was deployed to deal with laser incidents -- which have the potential to temporarily blind pilots -- on 39 occasions at the airport.

ummm

billie1b

Anyone caught doing it on purpose should be used as a jet wall for a 747, that'll put a stop to it.

Pro Hoc Vice

Jack1985 wrote: »

As per the post above, in aviation its better to not base possible events on the probability of hardly but the actual probability of it definitely happening and in this case airlines can't stop it as its individuals partaking in it so law agencies need to sort it out the best they can.

Also, are we one of the first EU countries to bring forward legislation on this in Europe?

Have not read it in full but it seems to have a lot of info, http://www.laserpointersafety.com/rules-general/intllaws/intllaws.html

Jack1985

Just for those who actually want a first hand look at the effects of lasering, this is very informative;

smurfjed

Has anyone ever read about the capabilities of laser defensive systems that are installed on some aircraft? There is a good chance that the system might assess the threat and attack them with its own lasers. Kinda star wars stuff, but it is installed in some aircraft.

fr336

smurfjed wrote: »

Has anyone ever read about the capabilities of laser defensive systems that are installed on some aircraft? There is a good chance that the system might assess the threat and attack them with its own lasers. Kinda star wars stuff, but it is installed in some aircraft.

Wouldn't be permitted

smurfjed

By whom?

fr336

smurfjed wrote: »

By whom?

The lawmakers. I very much doubt in Ireland and certainly not in the likes of the UK.

smurfjed

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/israel-sky-shield-anti-missile-laser-system-commer/

This is one system, but there are others