Mush Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 It is not about retina damage it is about maintaining night vision. Not at 15,000' but at 2000' ie on final or whilst manoeuvring toward final approach. Night vision takes up to 1/2 an hour to acquire and is lost in seconds. It is however possible to injure a pilots eye on an aircraft.Delta pilotLasers at Heathrow<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely no disagreement on night vison point. The Washington Times/ Delta Airlines article has been debated at some length before, brief summary, eye damage by laser in these circumstances considerably less likely than winning the lottery: http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr....com%26rnum%3D3 http://www.skywise711.com/lasers/APSA.html Of course for the determined may I reccomend the SkyTag http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/tracker.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Evans Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 eye damage by laser in these circumstances considerably less likely than winning the lottery:Most weeks, someone wins the lottery..... Having read the two threads, one just appears to be a rant, the other would appear to be inconclusive. However, there does not appear to be any disagreement that In two of the incidents the pilots were removed from flight status, examined at the hospital and diagnosed with retinal burns by a physician. They were not diagnosed with corneal abrasions. You cannot get retinal burns by rubbing your eyes.So does that mean it is possible to damage an eye in an aircraft or not? Ah Dougie, halcyon days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mush Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Meant to be doing my accounts, at least the maths is probably easier, but anyway an interesting distraction.... eye damage by laser in these circumstances considerably less likely than winning the lottery:Most weeks, someone wins the lottery..... Hate it when pick a poor similie, ok, winning the lottery several times in a row. Having read the two threads, one just appears to be a rant, the other would appear to be inconclusive. However, there does not appear to be any disagreement that In two of the incidents the pilots were removed from flight status, examined at the hospital and diagnosed with retinal burns by a physician. They were not diagnosed with corneal abrasions. You cannot get retinal burns by rubbing your eyes. Afraid the second link strongly disagrees with any diagnoses of retinal burns, due to the power density required and the difficulty in diagnoses of laser related retinal damage, a very specialist field. The power density required is simply not there, divergence and atmospheric affects never mind the cockpit windows facing the wrong way, do not support this theory. There is a lot more debate in the alt.lasers archive about this very subject. So does that mean it is possible to damage an eye in an aircraft or not? Ah Dougie, halcyon days!<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Guess its possible to poke the joystick in your eye ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Evans Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Afraid the second link strongly disagrees with any diagnoses of retinal burns, due to the power density required and the difficulty in diagnoses of laser related retinal damage, a very specialist field. The power density required is simply not there, divergence and atmospheric affects never mind the cockpit windows facing the wrong way, do not support this theory. The second link used lowest power from a given range (5mW), and the doctors saw something on the pilots retinae which if it was not a burn, resembled a burn. I hope we can agree that lasers should not be pointed at aircraft, whether deliberately or by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mush Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Afraid the second link strongly disagrees with any diagnoses of retinal burns, due to the power density required and the difficulty in diagnoses of laser related retinal damage, a very specialist field. The power density required is simply not there, divergence and atmospheric affects never mind the cockpit windows facing the wrong way, do not support this theory. The second link used lowest power from a given range (5mW), and the doctors saw something on the pilots retinae which if it was not a burn, resembled a burn. I hope we can agree that lasers should not be pointed at aircraft, whether deliberately or by accident.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> 5mW figure is used as absolute minimum power actually entering the eye that MAY cause damage, this is then extrapolated to the power level required at the range stated to irradiate the eye with this 5mW. According to Brian, Skywise`s, amended calculations at 1200 Feet would require 13.6W of power at origin. Not unfeasible, but a fairly sophisticated laser at this power level and assumes ideal conditions and that 5mW would in reality cause damage before blink reflex. At 8500 Feet the power required would be 683 watts, the collection of artics with generators and cooling plant might be hard to conceal. Lasers should never be pointed at moving vehicles of any sort, but unfortunately common sense is the least common of all senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shonk Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Whenever we (Fineline) hire out seachlights, we organise the CAA approval ourselves. It just makes sure that all bases are covered. You should let them know about the exact location of the searchlights as well as the approximate angles that you will be sweeping them to. Never had a problem yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutwo Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Thread necromancy at it's finest. I would expect the company hiring the lights to do that work for me unless specifically advised otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slim_mcslim Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Whenever we (Fineline) hire out seachlights, we organise the CAA approval ourselves. It just makes sure that all bases are covered. You should let them know about the exact location of the searchlights as well as the approximate angles that you will be sweeping them to. You really get all this information from your clients when dry hiring out lighting units. Why heap the extra burden upon the hire company of finding the longitude, lattitude and altitude of the proposed user site, then find out the times that the hirer intends to use the equipment and file this form and information at least 28 days before the date of the hire. Surely this must be the responsibility of the hirer?? All information in the form Annex A of document CAP 736 from CAA website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbuckley Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Thread necromancy at it's finest.Wish I'd spotted that before reading it through in it's entirety :( I thought it was a split from the current big searchlighty things thread..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Why heap the extra burden upon the hire company of finding the longitude, lattitude and altitude of the proposed user site, then find out the times that the hirer intends to use the equipment and file this form and information at least 28 days before the date of the hire. Surely this must be the responsibility of the hirer?? I would imagine that it's easier for the hire co. to contact the CAA than the end user. Since the hire co. would be familiar with the process, where as the end user probably has no idea that this is even necessary let alone how to go about it. Also it's easy to convert a postcode to longitude and latitude, using one of the may map websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.