Search and Rescue - Lasers and Signaling Devices

[dmaziuk]

Enlighten us with the point?

Q.E.D.

 

[Hoag]

Tursiops I think is saying that they didn't follow the 'don't risk a rescurer' moto during the thai kid rescue. They risked and lost life saving them. Trying to make a case that a laser 'flash' is somehow more risky than what those folks did is pretty irrational, especially since none of you can give us one single example of when the laser caused an accident.

So you are saying that you won't believe people who have had appropriate training till a crash actually occurs. Pilots and crew being temporarily blinded don't count because a crash was avoided. Medivac assets being grounded because their crew was grounded due to a laser event don't count because the aircraft didn't crash.

Got it. Until some idiot blinds a pilot to the point where the aircraft crashes, you do not see a risk. (FWIW, after the aircraft crashes, and kills everyone onboard, how exactly is the accident investigator to know that a laser blinded the pilot?)

In all likelyhood, it will be written up as:
CAUSE: Pilot Error. Pilot failed to maintain minimum safe altitude while operating in an active SAR area.

Numerous people have tried to explain why it is a bad idea, but the bottom line is that you are going to do whatever you want to do. I honestly hope you are never in a situation where you require the assistance of SAR resources, but if you do, and if you react by shining a laser at them, do not be surprised if they react the way we told you that they would.

 

[fsardone]

^ This

 

[tursiops]

So you are saying that you won't believe people who have had appropriate training till a crash actually occurs. Pilots and crew being temporarily blinded don't count because a crash was avoided. Medivac assets being grounded because their crew was grounded due to a laser event don't count because the aircraft didn't crash.

Got it. Until some idiot blinds a pilot to the point where the aircraft crashes, you do not see a risk. (FWIW, after the aircraft crashes, and kills everyone onboard, how exactly is the accident investigator to know that a laser blinded the pilot?)

In all likelyhood, it will be written up as:
CAUSE: Pilot Error. Pilot failed to maintain minimum safe altitude while operating in an active SAR area.

Numerous people have tried to explain why it is a bad idea, but the bottom line is that you are going to do whatever you want to do. I honestly hope you are never in a situation where you require the assistance of SAR resources, but if you do, and if you react by shining a laser at them, do not be surprised if they react the way we told you that they would.

These were both malicious strikes, illegal, and from a laser of unknown power. The issue here is a low-powered laser, in an emergency, used legally.

 

[fsardone]

Gents,
I do not know how many of you have been flying at night, low level over the sea, with or without NVGs. At best is a scary situation at worst you loose your life. This happened many times. Being temporarily blind while in this situation is a serious emergency.
RTB will never be questioned.
Crew and aircraft safety is paramount. Then when the crew has a reasonable reason to believe that risking their own life will bring home the lost at sea men, then will go above and beyond and will loose their lives trying. But not being blinded by a flash that cannot be located.

By the way, the law does not say that laseri g an aircraft is acceptable in a SAR situation. It only says that it is not illegal. Distress is an exemption. It does not become a good idea, just not illegal.

My $ 0.02

 

[tursiops]

By the way, the law does not say that laseri g an aircraft is acceptable in a SAR situation. It only says that it is not illegal. Distress is an exemption. It does not become a good idea, just not illegal.

This is a fair point. Note that the exemption was quoted as a response to several folks saying it was illegal. A good idea? The science and research seems to say a 1 mW laser is not harmful to the eye, but might be distracting, so is definitely not a good idea if the aircraft is landing, for example. The SAR flights (our context here) over open water....maybe a momentary distraction from a 1 mW laser is not so bad?

 

[Hoag]

These were both malicious strikes, illegal, and from a laser of unknown power. The issue here is a low-powered laser, in an emergency, used legally.

... and from the SAR crew's point of view, the laser you are suggesting to use will also be of unknown power and the pilot will not put his crew or aircraft in undue risk. If they see a laser, they will not stick around to see if it is a high power one, they will RTB and report a laser event.

But, like I said, do what you feel you need to.

ETA: My apologies. I used the term "RTB" without explaining it. RTB is short for Return to Base.

 

[fsardone]

This is a fair point. Note that the exemption was quoted as a response to several folks saying it was illegal. A good idea? The science and research seems to say a 1 mW laser is not harmful to the eye, but might be distracting, so is definitely not a good idea if the aircraft is landing, for example. The SAR flights (our context here) over open water....maybe a momentary distraction from a 1 mW laser is not so bad?

There is no problem with distraction. We are all trained to deal with distraction, there are far worst. Think of a FIRE warning in the central warning panel with or without a real fire ...

The problem is pointing a laser at the aircraft. Especially if flying NVG.
Flying over open sea at night is one of the most dangerous and disorienting activities you can perform. I have thousands of hours flying IMC in terrain following fast jets, and never got scared as much as when I was demonstrated hovering and whinching somebody out of the water.
So who does it, gets my outmost respect especially because flyes low and slow and carries no bombs or missiles.

In my view getting blinded in those condition is mortally dangerous for the crew. After a laser direct hit, beside the need of clean underwear, crew would need a break. Professionally they would have notated the position and, if incapacitated, would handover to the next crew.
(edited for typos)

 

[tursiops]

... and from the SAR crew's point of view, the laser you are suggesting to use will also be of unknown power and the pilot will not put his crew or aircraft in undue risk. If they see a laser, they will not stick around to see if it is a high power one, they will RTB and report a laser event.

But, like I said, do what you feel you need to.

I find what you are saying very hard to believe. A SAR aircraft, looking for someone, sees a flashing laser in the middle of nowhere and assumes it is malicious and illegal and high-power, so calls off the search? Really?

 

[tursiops]

There is no problem with distraction. We are all trained to deal with distraction, there are far worst. This of an FIRE warning in the central warning panel with or without a real fire ...

The problem is pointing a laser at the aircraft. Especially if flying NVG.
Flying over open sea at night is one of the most dangerous and disorienting activities you can perform. I have thousands of hours in jet flying IMC in terrain following fast jets, and never got scared as much as when I was demonstrade hovering and whinching somebody out of the water.
So who does it, gets my outmost respect especially because flyes low and slow and carries no bombs or missiles.

In my view getting blinded in those condition is mortally dangerous for the crew. After a laser direct hit, beside the need of clean underwear, crew would need a break. Professionally they would have notated the position and, if incapacitated, would handover to the next crew.

Again, you are describing a rather different situation. Not SAR, and using words like "blinded" and "incapacitated." This is apparently NOT what happens with a 1 mW laser, according to the research.