[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LASERS: A HAZARD TO AVIATION SAFETY AND SECURITY
=======================================================================
(109-6)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-627 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BOB FILNER, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SUE W. KELLY, New York GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JULIA CARSON, Indiana
JON C. PORTER, Nevada TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
TED POE, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
VACANCY
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama Columbia
SUE W. KELLY, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
York, Vice-Chair BOB FILNER, California
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
VACANCY (Ex Officio)
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
McVenes, Terry, Executive Air Safety Chairman, Air Line Pilots
Association.................................................... 13
Sabatini, Nicholas A., Associate Administrator for Aviation
Safety, Federal Aviation Administration........................ 7
Walden, Randall, Technical Director, Air Force Rapid
Capabilities Office, accompanied by Colonel Peter Demitry,
Assistant Air Force Surgeon General Modernization.............. 11
Winder, Parry, First Officer, Delta Airlines.................... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 25
Johnson. Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 27
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 35
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
McVenes, Terry.................................................. 29
Sabatini, Nicholas A............................................. 38
LASERS: A HAZARD TO AVIATION SAFETY AND SECURITY?
---------- Tu
esday, March 15, 2005
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Aviation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this hearing
of the House Aviation Subcommittee to order and welcome
everyone this morning. I apologize for being a few minutes
late. The only thing more important than my Subcommittee work
is my constituents, and they were here in town in force this
week.
But welcome, and the subject of today's hearing relates to
lasers. The question is what problems do lasers pose as a
hazard to our aviation safety and security. The order of
business is opening statements by members and one panel of
witnesses. We will proceed with opening statements then hear
from panelists and welcome other member's comments as we open
this.
As I said, today's hearing will focus on the safety and
security issues relating to lasers that interfere with the
operation of a number of civil aircraft. With the number of
incidents of misuse and illegal use of lasers interfering with
commercial pilot aircraft operations, it is important that we
examine the laws, regulations and safeguards that we have in
place to deal with this problem.
A number of important questions need to be answered by
those charged with the important responsibility for both
protecting our pilots and also for protecting the flying
public. Some of those questions, and I hope to get some answers
today, are as follows: Do we have adequate laws to deal with
those who would disrupt aviation safety by improper use of
lasers? Do we need better regulations of laser equipment? Do we
need better technology or defensive measures to deal with this
problem? And do pilots have adequate training?
We need to ask what safety and security threats do we face
by this use of this technology in the future, and also if we do
have a future incident in which lasers are used to disrupt or
incapacitate a pilot, have we failed in our responsibility to
protect passengers aboard the aircraft?
Very powerful lasers are now available over the internet
for just a few hundred dollars. What I would like to do at this
point is just show a video clip from an Internet vendor which
was recently shut down, but demonstrates the power of lasers.
[Video presentation.]
Mr. Mica. That laser, which is 20 times more powerful than
the FDA maximum allowable power level for a laser pointer,
burned a hole through the cup as you saw on the video in some
seven seconds. The misuse of lasers could be dangerous and
could also be irresponsible in its application.
One of today's witnesses was injured by a laser while
making a final approach to Salt Lake City. The FAA, DHS and the
Domestic Events Network have adopted new procedures to catch
anyone who points a laser into the cockpit of an aircraft. So
far, the Department of Justice has made a handful of arrests
under the Patriot Act. I think we should make it very clear
today that we expect, those of us in Congress who deal with
aviation safety and security, that all of these pranksters or
people who misapply the use of lasers will be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law.
I also have concerns with the proposed Department of
Defense visual warning system. At a time when we are trying to
prevent lasers from disrupting aviation operations, the
Department of Defense has created a warning system that flashes
laser beams onto aircraft that violate the air space
surrounding the National Capital Region. I would expect the
department to take all necessary safety precautions before this
system is ever activated.
In a new era of laser technology, it is important that
Congress take steps to make certain that the misuse and illegal
use of laser technology is properly addressed in both law and
regulation. It is my hope that this hearing will provide us
with some of the answers to some of the questions that we have
raised.
I am now pleased to recognize our Ranking Member for his
opening comments.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have an opening
statement that I will enter into the record. I do have brief
comments.
First, let me thank you for calling this hearing today on
whether lasers present a threat to aviation safety and
security. Since the early 1990s, the FAA has documented more
than 400 incidents involving lasers. To date, no aviation
accidents have been attributed to lasers, although there have
been a few cases where pilots have reportedly sustained eye
injuries and we will hear about that today.
The latest incident was this past Thursday, March 10, at
Dallas-Fort Worth where a pilot sustained blurred vision and
had to have the first officer land the aircraft. As you noted,
the FAA has taken steps over the years to address safety issues
surrounding lasers directed at aircraft. In 1995, the FAA
developed and implemented standards to counter a surge in laser
incidents. The standards defined safe laser exposure levels in
zones surrounding airports, resulting in laser-free zones, a
critical flight zone, and a sensitive flight zone.
The FAA has also undertaken flight simulator studies on the
effects of laser light on pilot vision and aircraft operations.
I look forward to hearing from the FAA witness today to explain
the results of these studies.
While we have known about the safety issues surrounding
lasers for a number of years, a recent chain of laser-related
events prompts us to start looking at laser activity as a
security issues. While none of the more than 400 incidents have
been linked to terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security
and the FBI issued a memo last December warning that terrorists
have explored using lasers as weapons. Since December of 2004,
there have been more than 100 incidents involving lasers, which
have resulted in significant media attention.
In response to these events, the FAA issued an advisory
circular in January of 2005 which would improve the reporting
requirements between flight crews, the FAA and appropriate law
enforcement and security agencies via the Domestic Events
Network. Pilot groups such as the Air Line Pilots Association,
ALPA, who happen to be here today, have provided
recommendations to protect and assist flight crews in the event
that they encounter laser in flights.
FAA studies reveal that pilots who were subjected to lasers
within legal FDA standards have reported temporary vision
impairments and brief periods of distraction, but more serious
injuries could result from contact with more powerful lasers,
as you noted, that are illegal but still available over the
Internet. Additionally, extremely powerful military-grade
lasers designed for blinding, while not widely available, may
be an emerging threat to aviation.
Therefore, it is important that we act to ensure that
lasers, especially high-intensity lasers, never become a
significant threat to safety or security.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the witnesses who are here to
testify today and I look forward to hearing their testimony. I
thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I appreciate your opening statement.
Let me recognize Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
on this important topic.
Since last September, law enforcement, DHS, the FAA, the
airlines and their pilots have been warning of the dangers of
passenger aviation from laser devices. A small $50 laser
pointer, the kind you can buy from many retail outlets, can
become a dangerous weapon to blind a pilot on a landing
approach. Until now, all of the incidents reported to Federal
law enforcement have been accidents or mischievous acts of
children. But during today's hearings, we must begin to
understand the nature of the threat.
What kind of a threat do we face when even office equipment
can threaten hundreds of lives in an instant? How can we
address this threat to protect the tens of thousands of
Americans who are 35,000 feet above at this time?
As families prepare to travel this holiday season, what
have we done and what can we do to further guarantee their
safety? Let us never forget that it was something nothing more
sophisticated than a simple box cutter that turned our own
airline system in to four weapons of mass destruction on
September 11.
I thank the panel for being here and look forward to their
comments.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Salazar?
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a brief opening statement that I would like to make.
I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today on aviation
safety and security. As a pilot myself, I have watched with
great concern the news reports on the use of lasers that impair
pilots' visions. Commercial airline pilots already have enough
to worry about when it comes to the safety of their passengers.
This new trend of using lasers to blind pilots is alarming.
I am also concerned that this could have greater
consequence for national security and the safety of our Nation.
I look forward to today's testimony. We must take
appropriate steps to ensure aviation safety and security.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Are there further opening statements? Mr.
DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for continuing to assert the Committee's role in protecting
the safety of the flying public and the integrity of our
system.
There has certainly been a disturbing increase in incidents
with these lasers. Obviously, the issues to deal with are
availability. It is beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee,
but hopefully we can make recommendations to some of our peers
on Commerce or other committees, or to the Administration on
further restrictions on the ownership and use of lasers.
Certainly, protocols would be within the realm of the FAA and
the airlines to develop training and research for
countermeasures or prevention, whether it could be some sort of
reflective coating on windshields or other things. Obviously,
we should recommend that there be steps taken in that area.
But these all have to also go in tandem with the other
threats we have discussed here, shoulder-fired missiles, the
fact that we still have gaping holes in our system to detect
carry-on explosives and/or checked explosives, probably the
most likely method of taking down a plane, and then the newly
leaked or revealed or whatever it was report about ostensible
al Qaeda exploration of new aviation targets, looking at
potential vulnerabilities in the system.
So there is a lot to do. This is one of many things we need
to worry about. We will hear from an individual who was
injured. I regret, Mr. Chairman, I have another hearing at the
same time so I will have to step out, but I will be fully
informed by my Ranking Member as to what steps we are taking.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Additional opening statements? Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for focusing on yet
another risk to air travel. It is a little disheartening to
have to hold this hearing. Lasers have had so many important
health and safety-related uses. The notion of this perverted
use of lasers is something we have to get a hold of. This is
not exactly a weapon of mass destruction, at least as it has
been used now, but it is certainly not beyond our imagination
to see how the prank use of a laser could cause an air crash
with horrible consequences.
I am not sure whether kids are taking movies too seriously;
whether or not we ought to recommend that lasers, at least at a
certain strength, that in order to buy them you perhaps should
be an adult. I am not sure where the problem is coming from,
who these people are. I will be very interested to hear that
today. I am particularly interested that you are turning this
technology on its head in the National Capital Region.
Of course, another set of safety issues may be raised, but
I think it is an important step in protecting the Nation's
capital because as a plane out of communication with radio
contact does not respond. As we know, about the only thing that
can be done is to shoot that plane down.
So I welcome the new technology to the extent that it is
useful and works here, particularly in the Nation's capital.
I thank you again for your leadership in calling this
hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady.
Any other opening statements? If we do not have any other
opening statements, Mr. Costello moves that we leave the record
open for a period.
Mr. Costello. For 10 days, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. Members are
welcome to submit their comments for the record.
I would like to now move to our panel of witnesses and
introduce them. We have Mr. Parry Winder, First Officer from
Delta Airlines. We have Mr. Nick Sabatini, who is the Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety with the Federal Aviation
Administration. Mr. Randall Walden is Technical Director of Air
Force Rapid Capabilities Office, accompanied by Colonel Peter
Demitry, Assistant Air Force Surgeon General, Modernization.
And finally, we have Captain Terry McVenes, Executive Safety
Chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association.
Welcome. What we would like you to do is try to make
certain that you be as succinct as possible in delivery of your
testimony. If you have additional information, data, something
you would like submitted for the record, just request that
through the Chair. We will include it in the record of this
hearing.
So with that, let me welcome Mr. Parry Winder, First
Officer for Delta Airlines. We will hear from you, sir, and
your particular experience and knowledge about the use of
lasers. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF PARRY WINDER, FIRST OFFICER, DELTA AIRLINES
Mr. Winder. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be with you today and members of the Committee.
As introduced, I am Mr. Winder. I am with Delta Airlines. I
am presently assigned as a flight instructor and proficiency
check pilot in the simulator for Delta. I am qualified to fly
as a First Officer and a Captain on the 737 Model 300.
On the evening of September 22, 2004, making an approach
into Salt Lake City, it was a beautiful evening. The weather
was clear, visibility greater than 30 miles. There was a
ceiling at approximately 25,000 feet. We acquired the airport
at least 35 miles out or so and were cleared by Salt Lake City
approach for a visual approach, landing to the north, runway
35.
Approximately a glide slope intercept about eight miles
from the runway as we came down the instrument landing system,
very startlingly and without any warning, the Captain I was
flying with mentioned in words such as, ``What is this? What is
going on?'' He pointed up to a console that lies overhead
between us, we call it the overhead panel, and there was an
intensely bright green-white light, and it was moving around
erratically.
I was hand-flying the airplane, which meant that I had the
controls in my hand and the throttles as well. The autopilot
was off and we were still speaking to Salt Lake City approach.
At that point, I looked up and saw the light and continued to
look forward and cross-check my instruments. As we normally do
in the aviation profession, when we fly at night we tend to
turn our instrument lights, our cockpit lights down low, which
helps our visual acuity, especially in the landing phase of
flight. Since our lights were down low, this was a very bright
light. I initially thought it was a photo flash.
Very shortly after that, I made the mistake of looking to
my right slightly, just at the time the laser did in fact catch
my right eye. The intensity of the light is nearly
indescribable, other than the fact that I would liken it to
looking at an arc-welder without a safety mask. It was very
intense and very short-lived. I turned away immediately, closed
my eye.
At the same time, we received a frequency change from Salt
Lake City approach to Salt Lake tower. Prior to leaving that
Salt Lake approach frequency, the Captain mentioned to the
authorities there, ``Hey, someone is trying to track us with a
laser. We are getting hit with a laser.'' The response was,
``Okay, we will report it.'' We immediately had the frequency
changed, as I mentioned. Salt Lake City tower cleared us to
land. The Captain then was in a discussion with the tower about
where the laser was, where it was coming from, if we could
identify it, et cetera.
I was still hand-flying the airplane seeing spots in my
right eye. The landing was essentially uneventful. It happened
approximately two or three minutes later. We had the airplane
on the ground, but I did notice that my depth perception was
way off. As I was looking out to find the runway to flare the
airplane to get it safely on the ground, I ended up flaring way
too high and put the airplane a little more than normal on a
vertical descent.
We stopped the airplane and taxied clear of the runway. The
processes between our cockpit and the air traffic control tower
in trying to explain to them what happened seemed difficult and
tenuous. That is because we really did not know what to say
other than we had been tracked by a laser.
When we got back into the gate, my Captain and I spent a
few minutes and talked about what had happened. We determined
that we were tracked in the cockpit for approximately six
seconds, with the laser moving around, coming through what we
call the R-2, my right number two window, at an angle we
estimate to be approximately 30 to 40 degrees down,
approximately two o'clock position.
My altitude was approximately 2,400 feet above the ground,
so we estimate the range of approximately 4,000 to 4,500 feet
line of sight from point of origin. We concluded our business
that night at the airport, and since it was the end of our
rotation, I was driving home. I have about a one hour or so
drive to my home north of the airport.
While driving home, I noticed I was starting to get a dull
headache in the back of my head. I noticed black spots
appearing in my vision in my right eye. By the time I got home,
the headache had intensified. I mentioned it to my wife. She
said, ``Well, what do you think we ought to do? Do you need to
go to the hospital?'' I said, ``I think I will be okay. Let's
just go to sleep.'' I took a Motrin.
I woke up the next morning in intense pain. It felt like
somebody had actually pricked me in the eye with ice pick, as
it were. We called our normal family eye doctor. He was out of
town. They recommended an adjacent eye surgeon. We immediately
were seen by the doctor, first thing in the morning. I was
diagnosed at that time with an edema of my right retina, which
means a swelling of the right retina. It felt to me, sir, like
my eyeball was too big for the socket, like it was going to pop
out. In fact, it was red and swollen and very irritated.
The immediate concern was that the swelling would cause a
detachment of the retina. So I was under the doctor's care for
the next two weeks, every other day or so going in for a full
dilation and examination of the retina to make sure that it did
not detach or have any further complications.
I am pleased to report that after approximately three or
three-and-a-half weeks, I was able to regain my medical flying
status through the FAA and our great flight surgeons at Delta,
and have since been reinstated to flight status. I do have
slight residual effects. I have noticed an over-sensitivity to
light, especially in snow area where we live with direct
sunlight, as well as some haloing in bright light conditions.
Mr. Mica. I thank you for sharing with us your particular
experience and the effects of lasers on your vision and ability
to perform your duties.
What we are going to do is go through and hear from all of
the other panelists, and then we will get back for some
questions.
No stranger to the subcommittee is Nick Sabatini, as the
Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Aviation
Administration. Welcome this morning. Welcome back. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS A. SABATINI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Sabatini. Chairman Mica, Congressman Costello, and
members of the subcommittee, good morning. It is a pleasure to
be here today as the Subcommittee on Aviation explores an
important issue for aviation safety, the focusing of lasers on
cockpits of aircraft and helicopters.
I am Nick Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation
Safety at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. This
morning, I would like to provide an overview of how hand-held
lasers are regulated, the potential of catastrophic events from
the irradiation of a cockpit, and what the FAA is doing to
protect air crew members from these incidents.
With me today, and he is seated behind me, is Dr. Van
Nakagawara, a research optometrist and vision research team
leader at the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute,
popularly known as CAMI. Dr. Nakagawara is the lead author of a
study entitled, The Effects of Laser Illumination on
Operational and Visual Performance of Pilots During Final
Approach, which was published in June of 2004.
In recent years, laser devices have become less expensive
and more commonplace. Lasers are used in supermarket scanners,
CD and DVD players, construction and surveying instruments,
laser pointers for presentations, and other medical and
industrial uses. Also, lasers are often used outdoors as part
of orchestrated laser light shows at theme parks, casinos and
special events.
The issue of how lasers affect pilots and whether they pose
a threat to aviation safety has received media attention
recently. The aviation safety issue is very straightforward.
Obviously, pilots use their eyes to obtain the vast majority of
all the information needed to safely fly an aircraft. Operation
of an aircraft at night presents additional visual challenges.
Exposure to relatively bright lights such as a laser when the
eye is adapted to low light levels can result in temporary
visual impairment.
Visual effects can last from several seconds to several
minutes. The three most common physiological effects associated
with exposure to bright lights are glare, flash-blindness and
after-image. The principal concern for pilots is the
possibility of being illuminated with a laser during terminal
operations, which include approach, landing, and take-offs.
Pilots conducting low-altitude operations at night are
particularly vulnerable to accidental or malicious laser
illumination.
Let me state at the outset that to date no accidents have
been attributed to the illumination of air crew members by
lasers. While a few of these incidents have resulted in
reported eye injury, no civilian pilot has had any permanent
visual impairment as the result of laser exposure. However,
given the considerable number of reported laser incidents, over
400 since 1990 and approximately 112 since November of 2004,
the potential for an aviation accident does exist.
I want to emphasize that the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS, assures us that they have no information that
would suggest that any of these incidents is in any way related
to terrorist activity. FAA's role in the issue surrounding the
use of lasers rests with our mandate to ensure aviation safety.
There are other entities who are investigating this issue from
a security perspective. It is important for everyone to
understand the various roles and responsibilities.
The FAA has no authority to either regulate lasers or take
enforcement action against individuals who illuminate aircraft
cockpits. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has authority
to regulate lighting products and electronic product radiation.
With respect to the enforcement issue, Federal, State and
local law enforcement entities have the authority to prosecute
individuals who recklessly illuminate aircraft cockpits.
Certainly, FAA has an important role in working with these
entities to ensure aviation safety, but our role is not a
primary one.
Based in part on historical laser data and military
research on vision performance lost from laser exposure, the
FAA issued a revised FAA Order 7400.2 on December 31, 2002
which includes new guidelines for flight-safe exposure limits,
FSELs, in specific zones of navigable airspace associated with
airport terminal operations. The revised FAA Order 7400.2
establishes four specific zones: the laser-free flight zone;
the critical flight zone; the sensitive flight zone; and the
normal flight zone.
The laser-free flight zone includes airspace in the
immediate proximity of the airport, up to and including 2,000
feet above ground level, extending two nautical miles in all
directions, measured from the runway center line. The critical
flight zone includes the space outside the laser-free flight
zone to a distance of 10 nautical miles from the airport
reference point, to 10,000 feet above ground level. Virtually
all of the lasing incidents to date have occurred in the
critical flight zone.
The necessity of establishing laser-free zones around
airports is documented in the results of a study done by CAMI
and published in June, 2004. The study consisted of subjecting
34 pilots to four eye-safe levels of visible laser light during
four final approach maneuvers in a flight simulator. All test
subjects were volunteers who participated after giving informed
consent. Subjective responses were solicited after each trial
and during an exit interview. The pilots were asked to rate the
affect the laser exposure had on their ability to operate the
aircraft and on their visual performance.
Approximately 75 percent of the responses solicited from
subjects indicated they had experienced adverse visual effects,
resulting in some degree of operational difficulty when
illuminated by laser radiation during final approach maneuvers
at or below 100 feet above ground level. Even at the lowest
level of laser exposure, two-thirds of the responses indicated
that the subjects experienced glare, flash-blindness or after-
images.
However, it is important to note that all subjects were
able to maintain operational control and safely land the
airplane or successfully execute a missed approach.
Significantly, none of the actual lasing incidents against
aircraft to date have occurred within these parameters.
In response to the recent increase in reports of pilots
being illuminated with lasers, and as a result of the findings
of the CAMI report, Secretary Mineta announced on January 12,
2005 a new FAA policy designed to protect air crews and
passengers and to discourage future laser incidents. Secretary
Mineta directed the FAA to distribute an advisory circular, AC
70-02, which contains new guidelines to give pilots, air
traffic controllers, and law enforcement timely information
about laser incidents. The new guidelines will help pilots
identify areas where lasers have been sighted, will assist
controllers in reporting laser incidents, and will give law
enforcement officers the information as quickly as possible in
order to investigate and prosecute those persons who put
aircraft at risk.
At the present time, there is no system or device that can
be installed on an aircraft or given to pilots and crew to
protect them from these incidents, without possibly affecting
operational performance. The U.S. military has dedicated a
great deal of time and research to finding ways of protecting
their pilots from an enemy's use of lasers to impair pilot
performance during military flight operations. Their efforts
have established that there is no easy answer to this problem.
For example, efforts to develop pilot goggles that will
screen out all the wavelengths of visible lasers and thereby
prevent any adverse effects from exposure to them, have proven
to have limited practical application and may even be
potentially hazardous to flight safety. Screening out the
wavelengths that produce red and green lights, the most common
color of lasers, will also impair the pilot's ability to read
the instruments in current cockpits, which are often displayed
in either green or magenta. The goggles can also impair the
pilot's vision by reducing the amount of visible light. Both of
these results are unacceptable.
Consequently, other initiatives that call for installing
filters or screens on cockpit wind screens to intercept or
deflect lasers could similarly result in an unacceptable
reduction of critical visibility for safe flight. Protecting
pilots from the real but remote risk of being illuminated by a
commercially available laser powerful enough to cause an
accident cannot be accomplished by a solution that could create
an even more dangerous operating condition.
We at the FAA are working with the Department of Defense to
explore technologies and protocols that may provide protection
for pilots and air crews, while not impairing their ability to
operate their aircraft. An alternative solution may be an
operational one. We are hopeful by obtaining and evaluating
more information on the effects and risks of laser
illumination, FAA might at some point be in a position to
develop protocols for pilots to follow to best mitigate the
effects of a laser, much as we have for other operational
challenges.
In the interim, the FAA will continue to partner with the
Department of Homeland Security to better define the threat
laser devices pose and identify countermeasures to minimize the
risk to aviation safety. We will also work collaboratively with
Department of Defense scientists to determine whether any of
their research can have practical applications to the civil
aviation arena. It is our hope that the Advisory Circular the
Secretary announced earlier this year will result in an
improvement in the ability of State and local government to
prosecute individuals who intentionally attempt to focus lasers
on aircraft.
The FAA will continue working with the FDA and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to improve product labeling and
better educate the general public concerning the potential harm
from the inappropriate use of lasers.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. As I
said, we will defer until we have heard from all of the
panelists.
Before I go to the next panelist, I have had a request by
Mr. Boswell to make an opening statement. He has another
obligation. I would like to recognize him, if I may.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate
your having this important hearing. I will read the record on
this very carefully.
Mr. Hayes and I talk about these things from the fact that
we are still flying airplanes and proud that we are. Yesterday,
I was test flying a Grumman 430 in my little Comanche and, wow,
what a gadget. But I was thinking about today a little bit, and
this was broad daylight and so on, but last night, or this
morning, rather, about, I don't know, it must have been around
one o'clock. I was landing at Dulles, beautiful lights,
approach, looking over the pilot's shoulder. I wondered what
would happen if you got struck by a laser right then. I assume
your night vision is gone. How long? I would like for you to
address if you can, or somewhere.
Make an missed approach, how long is the recovery? Is it
normal time? Of course you are subject to maybe it would happen
to you again on the second approach, but nevertheless. I do not
know what the answers are to this. A thought came to my mind
very much during your testimony that goggles, when you think
about depth perception and all these things, it might be more
of a hindrance than a help and so on.
So I think it is very timely we are doing this. You know,
certainly, and I cannot emphasize how much all of us feel that
the importance of the airline industry, commercial aviation is
to our country in many, many respects. I do not need to go
there. We know that. But general aviation is too. It is a big
deal. We have just got to do our best to keep them flying and
be safe, and there are no guarantees for anything. We know
that, but we have to do the best we can.
So I salute you for your efforts. I want you to keep it up.
If there is something that we need to do, and I know that is
why our Chairman and Ranking Member have called these type of
hearings, is so we can be knowledgeable. It is a moving thing.
It is not static at all. I just want to encourage you to really
give it your all. I think you are. I have confidence. I like
the representation I see here at this hearing this morning.
I think that if we put smart people, and I mean that, smart
people like you together in the same room, you will work out
some solutions. That is what we need to do. Whether it is to
help that military pilot that is taking off in his F-16 out of
Des Moines and heading for Iraq, or whether it is the general
aviation airplane that would allow me and one of my colleagues
to get in here late last night, or this morning rather, or
whatever. We depend so much in this country on our ability to
be able to fly and fly safely.
We have to keep flying. We have to keep flying. So we have
to do our best. I thank you for your input. You might address
that before I have to leave. I can read about it, if the
Chairman does not want to go there, the in recovery time, once
you get that with the laser.
Thank you very much and thanks for your hard work.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We may have witnesses address that.
We will return now to our panel, and recognize Mr. Randall
Walden, Technical Director of Air Force Rapid Capabilities
Office. He is accompanied by Colonel Peter Demitry. Welcome
sir, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF RANDALL WALDEN, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE
RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL PETER
DEMITRY, ASSISTANT AIR FORCE SURGEON GENERAL MODERNIZATION
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and staff, I
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
and answer questions regarding the visual warning system, a
system that was developed by the United States Air Force Rapid
Capabilities Office in support of North American Aerospace
Defense Command, or NORAD's mission.
Accompanying me today is Colonel Peter Demitry. Colonel
Demitry is a medical doctor, a flight surgeon and command
pilot, and was instrumental in setting the eye-safe design
parameters for the visual warning system.
The visual warning system is a ground-based light signal
similar to those defined in Federal Aviation Regulation 91-125.
The visual warning system that was developed by the Air Force
is controlled by NORAD and safely emits a sequenced red and
green light in a narrow beam directed only at the intended
aircraft. These visually conspicuous lights, distinct from all
other lights in the National Capital Region, and from those
currently used by FAA air traffic control, are intended to warn
pilots who are operating in an unauthorized manner with respect
to FAA regulations and who may appear to be a threat to the
National Capital Region.
To enable this signal to both selectively and effectively
warn two attributes were required: one, a highly visible light
of multiple colors; and two, a very narrow beam. To meet both
of these requirements, a low-power laser system that displays
alternating green and red lights was developed and tested for
safety. Prior to using the alternating green and red lights, a
technical chain of events must occur. These events include
tracking the intruder aircraft by precision radar, tracking the
intruder by visual or infrared camera, a decision to use the
visual warning system, and finally illumination of the visual
warning system.
For a decision to be made to use the visual warning system,
an aircraft must enter the National Capital Region airspace
without authorization and fail to respond to air traffic
control. Both of these occurrences are violations of FAA
procedures for flight within the restricted flight zones and
represent a threat to general and commercial aviation. Details
of the decision process for use of the visual warning system
are under the operational control of NORAD.
In cooperation with the Surgeon General of the Air Force,
the Air Force Research Laboratory Optical Radiation Safety
Team, the FAA Flight Standards Office, the FAA Airspace and
Rules Division and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory, we know the visual warning system to be
eye-safe.
The visual warning system consists of two one-and-a-half
watt lasers that produce red and green light, two telescopes,
and two cameras for precision tracking, all mounted on a fully
controllable pedestal. Each laser's level of light is passed
through a telescope to disperse the power over an area
sufficiently large enough so an aircraft will be illuminated at
long ranges. These pairings of laser sources with telescopes
render the level of illumination eye-safe not only at the
aircraft, but also at the output of each telescope. The
American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, defines the
term ``eye-safe'' associated with lasers. At all ranges, the
level of light radiating from the telescope is less than the
ANSI maximum permissible exposure level for eye safety.
Based on the ANSI standards and additional guidance from
the Air Force biophysicists and physicians who specialize in
lasers in the anatomy of the eye, these light levels were
defined and laboratory-tested. Prior to moving this system to
the National Capital Region, we received a letter of non-
objection from the FAA for test operation and conducted field
tests in New England.
Once the system was moved to the National Capital Region,
further testing was performed in which we illuminated
cooperative government aircraft and observers. In the 12
flights flown in the National Capital Region over the past
three months, the visual warning system illuminated observers
for a total of 120 minutes. The observers included flight
surgeons, FAA personnel, government pilots and others who
participated in the development of the system. All of this
development was done with full FAA knowledge and participation.
The Air Force has developed an enhanced warning capability
that adds great value to the defense of the National Capital
Region. The visual warning system aids the safety of general
and commercial aviation by providing a non-lethal, non-
threatening method to warn pilots before there is an
opportunity for an innocent errant pilot to be confused with a
hostile air threat. Perceived air threats to national security
in the National Capital Region not only impact general and
commercial aviation. They affect the lives of professionals and
tourists in our Nation's capital. In the near future, this
system may even prevent an unnecessary evacuation of personnel
from government buildings like the U.S. Capitol as seen on June
9, 2004.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear
before the subcommittee. I look forward to answering your
questions.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I take it Colonel Demitry did not have
an opening statement.
Mr. Walden. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
So we will turn to Captain Terry McVenes, Executive Air
Safety Chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association. Welcome,
sir, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TERRY MCVENES, EXECUTIVE AIR SAFETY CHAIRMAN, AIR
LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. McVenes. Good morning, Congressman Mica, Congressman
Costello and the rest of the Committee.
My name is Captain Terry McVenes. I am the Executive Air
Safety Chairman for the Air Line Pilots Association
International. I have been an airline pilot for 27 years. It is
a pleasure to be here this morning to represent ALPA's 64,000
pilots that fly for 41 different airlines here in the United
States and Canada.
First of all, I would like to applaud the Committee for
holding this hearing and for your continuing attention to
aviation safety and security. As First Officer Winder's earlier
statement made very clear, pilots, our members, are on the
front lines of aviation safety every day. Regardless of whether
a prankster or someone with more sinister intentions caused
these recent incidents, they underscore the real dangers that
lasers impose. Federal agencies and legal authorities must
respond and they must involve pilots every step of the way.
Lasers are not a new threat to aviation or to ALPA. We have
been involved in dealing with the laser hazard since the early
1990s when the potential dangers of powerful outdoor displays
such as those used by Las Vegas casinos first became known.
More recently, private individuals have used lower-powered
lasers available on the Internet to create visible beams in our
airspace. We are aware of at least 20 laser events in a very
short two-week period just between December 23, 2004 and
January 2, 2005. Hundreds of these events have taken place over
the last several years.
Lasers affect pilots in one of four ways, each with
increasing seriousness: distraction, disruption,
disorientation, and finally incapacitation. While we are
extremely concerned about the risks to the health of our
pilots, the public needs to understand that every commercial
aircraft carries a professional two-pilot crew, and it is
highly unlikely that an individual could incapacitate both
pilots simultaneously, so flying remains extremely safe as a
result of this dynamic.
As this Committee well knows, no practical and reliable
technology exists today to shield airline pilots from the
effects of lasers. However, research is ongoing to develop
filters that could be used for airline operations and ALPA
supports that research.
As Mr. Costello and Mr. Sabatini have already mentioned
this morning, on January 11 of this year the Federal Aviation
Administration issued an advisory circular that requires all
pilots to immediately report any laser sightings to air traffic
controllers. It also requires controllers to share that
information through the Federal Domestic Events Network. This
DEN is designed to provide real-time security-related
information about events affecting air traffic operations to
the FAA, to the TSA and to other government stakeholders,
including law enforcement agencies. Both the DEN and the new
guidance to pilots are critical steps forward and ALPA commends
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta for his leadership on
this action.
I do want to note that while lasers are clearly an aviation
safety issue, the extent to which they are an aviation security
threat is still unclear. On January 12 of this year, Secretary
Mineta reported that there is, ``no specific or credible
intelligence that would indicate that these laser incidents are
connected to terrorism.'' Law enforcement and intelligence
community sources confirm that the recent spate of laser
incidents cannot be linked to terrorism.
That said, there is little doubt that lasers will continue
to be an aviation safety concern in the future. As our Nation
responds to 64,000 pilots of ALPA, we make the following
recommendations. First of all, because pilots are on the front
lines of aviation safety, it is critical that we have the
information that we need to do our jobs. ALPA calls on the
Federal Government to improve that information flow both for
reporting incidents and for informing pilots about major
security concerns while they are in the cockpit.
Number two, government and industry must support work
underway that will help pilots respond in the event of an
unauthorized laser illumination. That has to include creating
operational procedures, conducting simulator training and
adapting ground school materials.
Number three, we recommend that the government and industry
must accelerate research and development of technology that can
protect airline crews from the potential of this risk of
lasers.
Number four, while the Federal Government has publicly said
that it knows of no credible evidence that terrorists may be
involved with these laser incidents, we must not assume that
this will always be true. ALPA urges the DHS and other agencies
to continue monitoring for any indications of terrorist
activities.
And finally, ALPA recommends that law enforcement agencies
fully investigate and prosecute those who intentionally
illuminate cockpits with lasers to the maximum extent of the
law.
Flying remains extremely safe. However, our country must
remain vigilant and use responsible fact-based approaches to
evaluate all aviation safety and security threats, including
those represented by lasers. By virtue of our passion and our
professionalism, pilots have an unrivaled stake in aviation
safety and security.
We look forward to working together with the Federal
agencies and with Congress to address lasers and any other
threats to passengers, crew or cargo. The panel sitting before
you today is made up of pilots and Federal agency leaders, a
true testament to the fact that aviation security is more than
just protecting pilots or planes. It is about protecting our
Nation.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
I thank each of our witnesses for their participation and
comments.
We will turn now to some questions. I will lead off with a
few questions. First of all, First Officer Winder, the
individual or individuals that were involved in your particular
incident, were they identified or arrested?
Mr. Winder. No, sir. We have not to date been able to find
out who the perpetrators were. We did find a generalized
location where they probably operated from. It was a light
industrial complex in South Central Salt Lake near a graveyard.
Mr. Mica. In your incident, I guess it was September.
Mr. Winder. September 22.
Mr. Mica. Yes. It was prior to FAA's issuing their ruling
in January and their guidelines.
Mr. Winder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Are you familiar with what they have issued as
far as guidelines for reporting, et cetera? And do you think
that is adequate?
Mr. Winder. Yes, sir. I am now familiar with it. I will
probably put myself on report by saying knowing what I know
now, and doing what I or we did as a crew, is very different,
because we did not respond. Having no previous experience or
knowledge or understanding, we were kind of treading new water.
We did not really know what we were doing.
Mr. Mica. So when did you end up reporting? And to whom did
you report the incident?
Mr. Winder. We reported to the FAA during the incident. We
failed to follow-up on that that night. We did not understand
the complexity of the issue. The very next morning very early,
we reported it to our company officials, our Delta corporate
security. That kind of got the ball rolling, sir.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Winder. The FBI got involved immediately, the TSA,
Anti-Terrorist Task Force.
Mr. Mica. When did the FBI get involved, again?
Mr. Winder. Why did they?
Mr. Mica. When?
Mr. Winder. When? The very next morning.
Mr. Mica. The next morning, okay.
Mr. Winder. So the morning of the 23rd they got involved.
Mr. Mica. So there was some follow-through by FAA.
Mr. Winder. Yes, sir. Tremendous.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Sabatini, according to what I think you testified,
there have been about 112 reports of incidents in 2004, which
is a dramatic increase over the previous time, since I think
you said 1990. In many of those incidents have the perpetrators
of using lasers in an improper fashion been identified?
Mr. Sabatini. Well, I do not have the information that the
law enforcement organizations would have in terms of that
information. But we do know that, as Mr. Winder has explained,
there is now in place a very rigorous procedure to be followed.
Mr. Mica. I am told there are only three or four incidents
in which they have actually been able to, or where they have
gone after folks and have been able to identify them or
prosecute them, out of the 112. Does anyone know if that is the
case? ALPA?
Mr. McVenes. No, we are not aware of a whole lot of
prosecutions on it, that is true.
Mr. Mica. Since January, we have some new guidelines in
place. I understand most recently, and with the provisions of
the Patriot Act, that an individual can be prosecuted at the
Federal level. Is that an adequate enforcement tool, Mr.
Sabatini?
Mr. Sabatini. It is my understanding that the law
enforcement organizations have the tools necessary to prosecute
individuals who may participate in such activities.
Mr. Mica. Again, I think you testified that the FDA has no
authority to prosecute or go after these folks, no enforcement
authority. You talked about FDA regulating the equipment
itself, the laser equipment, and then you said Federal, State
and local. In instances like this, though, I am not sure that
State or local really have much jurisdiction and it would also
be questionable where maybe the individual perpetrates it, he
commits an offense to an aircraft in the sky which might be
over two or three jurisdictions. So it seems like it is going
to end up in the Federal bailiwick for enforcement.
Do you feel that we need to adopt any additional laws, FAA
regulations, anything to deal with it? What we are seeing is a
pretty dramatic increase in the incidents.
Mr. Sabatini. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a popular
case, the one up in New Jersey where a police helicopter was
irradiated and they immediately landed and apprehended the
individual. It is my understanding that the Federal level, the
Patriot Act, was used as a tool to prosecute this individual.
If there is additional need for stronger authority, I am
not familiar with that.
Mr. Mica. Again, do you think that FAA could do something
by rule, or do we need to do it by law?
Mr. Sabatini. Sir, I would think that it would be done by
law.
Mr. Mica. Okay. I was kind of surprised. I flew into
Dallas-Fort Worth on Thursday and was kind of shocked by
reading that there was an incident. I flew on a Friday and I
understand there was an incident on Thursday, which I am not
certain whether they found anyone who perpetrated that laser
incident.
ALPA has some recommendations, improving the reporting of
incidents. Can you elaborate on that? Are the guidelines that
were put in place in January insufficient and how would you
improve reporting?
Mr. McVenes. I would not say that they are insufficient.
Certainly, it was a very first step for putting some procedures
in place that both the air traffic controllers could use, and
then provide a means for getting that information to the
appropriate government agencies. We also have to make sure that
the pilots are getting the information as well.
Part of the requirement is for the air traffic controllers
to, if they get a report of a laser incident, that they are to
report that to other crews in the area. We just have to make
sure that those procedures are being followed because
information is everything for us in our business. We have to
have it so we can do our jobs and keep our passengers and cargo
safe.
Mr. Mica. Final question and I may have some additional
questions, but I want to give other members an opportunity. Mr.
Walden, the Air Force is putting into place this sort of
warning system. It is not operational.
Mr. Walden. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. So your primary means of the warning system is a
laser technology. How would pilots be able to differentiate
between a random misuse of lasers like we have heard most of
the incidents out today, versus your system?
Mr. Walden. I think the main way they would tell the
difference is it has a sequence of red-red-green lights that
you would see based over about a one second interval, and that
would be repetitive. It would also be directed at intruder
aircraft to specifically identify that aircraft, as opposed to
just randomly doing that.
Mr. Mica. Is this a backup? Is this a last resort? Are
there communications and other notifications, when they fail,
is that what this is designed for or what?
Mr. Walden. Yes, sir. It is a form of communication.
Mr. Mica. But it is a backup. You will use other methods of
notifying someone that they have intruded into airspace before
you get to this laser.
Mr. Walden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. How long before you plan to implement this?
Mr. Walden. That is really up to NORAD. My understanding is
they are working closely with the FAA to come up with a
schedule to actually take it operational. But for specifics on
that schedule, you need to really talk to NORAD.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Let me yield to Mr. Costello at this point.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Sabatini, you have suggested in your
written testimony that there may be operational mitigation
techniques that crews could employ and use. You have heard the
testimony of Captain McVenes about the ALPA recommendations. I
wonder if you might tell us where the FAA is and how they feel
about the recommendations of ALPA.
Mr. Sabatini. I would support the recommendations made by
ALPA. I would add that we have a work group working with a
number of different agencies and professionals to help us
develop what those protocols might be. They might be examples
such as engage the autopilot or look away, obviously, and lower
your head below the instrument panel so that you avoid the
direct viewing of the light. But it is premature for me to say
what those might be. Those are just some examples, Mr.
Costello.
Mr. Costello. This work group that you referred to, how
long have they existed and how long have they been working on
this issue?
Mr. Sabatini. They have been in existence probably less
than a year, but I expect to have their recommendations by
August of this year.
Mr. Costello. It has been suggested by some that pilots
could wear some type of goggles to mitigate the effects of
laser attacks. I just wonder what your thoughts are on that
idea.
Mr. Sabatini. I think the technology has some promise, but
as we know it today, it has some significant limitations,
primarily with civilian airliners where the cockpits today
utilize many different colors to indicate the importance of the
information that is being presented, such as red, green,
magenta, et cetera. When you consider that a goggle will filter
out that wavelength, that particular color, the red or the
green, you would actually be inducing a limitation and the
ability of a crew member to see some important information. So
at this point in time, we do not think it advisable to install
on or have crew members wear.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Winder, I wonder if you might respond to
the issue of the suggestion that goggles may help prevent
blurred vision and so on.
Mr. Winder. With respect to laser energy, and because of
the multitude of displays we are required to closely monitor,
especially on final approach and landing, unless we can come to
a technological conclusion on how to avoid filtering out
important color signals that we receive, we just do not have
that technology right now.
Goggles, as it were, I think would be an immediate fix, but
having both pilots wear goggles probably would not be the best
way, especially today as the technology is presently
constituted.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Walden, it seems a little ironic that we
are talking about the potential danger of lasers being directed
at pilots and crews, while at the same time that NORAD is
planning to implement a laser-based visual warning system. I
wonder if you might comment as to how you believe that this
system can be developed where it is safe for pilots.
Mr. Walden. There were three main things that we came up
with when we designed the system. The first one was that it had
to be eye-safe at all ranges, to include right up to the
aperture. The second thing is that it needed to be a very
narrow beam so it specifically focuses on an intruder aircraft.
And then finally, operator controls that allow it to be turned
off when the decision needs to be made.
I do not want to comment on the operational impacts
associated with what NORAD is going to do procedurally, but we
can take that and get that information back to your staff.
Mr. Costello. Very good.
A final question for Mr. Sabatini. I am wondering what type
of lasers did the FAA employ in their study to determine the
effects on pilots?
Mr. Sabatini. We used that which is considered not to
exceed the maximum exposure limits. If you need some specifics,
I do have Dr. Van Nakagawara who conducted the testing right
here behind me if you need more specific information.
Mr. Costello. I would ask that you submit the information
to us for the record.
Mr. Sabatini. I would be happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information received follows:]
A collimated beam of green light with a peak spectral
irradiance of 532 nm wavelength was generated by a continuous-
wave doubled Nd:YAG laser.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
calling this hearing because with the great increase in the
number of these incidents, this is certainly something that is
appropriate to look into.
I notice that in our briefing paper it says in the March
2005 issue of the Airline Pilot magazine, the Air Line Pilots
Association recommends several tactics to reduce the impact of
a laser, including turning up cockpit lighting to maximum
brightness, turning on the autopilot, and shielding the eyes
from the light source.
Now, I am not sure exactly what they are referring to on
shielding the eyes, unless that is the goggles that we are
talking about. Have you seen that article, Mr. Winder, with
those recommendations? And what affect do you think that would
have had in your case?
Mr. Winder. Yes, sir, I have seen the article. Though not
directly instrumental in some of these procedures, I did make
recommendations as a result of my incident. With respect to
specifically shielding the eyes, it is more of a direct shield,
for instance your hand or lowering your head or actually
turning your head away from the light source.
With respect to our exact incident, it was very, very
pinpoint light. As a matter of fact, it looked like a light
saber. It was so intensely bright. There was no problem in
tracking this light beam all the way down to the source. There
was no breakup of the light. It was absolutely intense. I would
think, though not professionally qualified to make a judgment,
that it was of the extreme energy level laser.
Mr. Duncan. But since you had not had that happen before,
you were so caught by surprise you did not think to do any of
those simple things.
Mr. Winder. I did not. I think probably my human nature is
that I see a bright light and I immediately look to see what it
was. But now having some information and training now, saying
that if you do see a bright light, do not look at it. Turn
away.
Mr. Duncan. Well, it is good that other pilots are being
warned about this by articles such as that and also hearings
like this. Is it correct to assume, I know that a lot of people
maybe do not want to put on goggles. Is it correct to assume
that something as simple as an expensive pair of sunglasses
would be sufficient to assist with this problem, Mr. Walden?
Mr. Walden. I believe that we can assist in making that
better. Right now, I would kind of like to refer to my medical
doctor here to help me out on that one question.
Mr. Duncan. Sure.
Mr. Demitry. Sir, that question comes up very, very
frequently among all air crews worldwide. Succinctly, the
answer is no. Sunglasses do not suffice in any way, shape or
form for adequate protection against laser radiation.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I know that it has been stated here that
the Federal Government has authority under the Patriot Act to
prosecute people who do this. I know that it would be very,
very difficult to apprehend people who do this, just as in Mr.
Winder's case, but I think that what we should check into is,
even though there is authority, are the penalties sufficient,
and we need to make sure that the penalties are pretty stiff
and strong for an incident like this, and we should prosecute
somebody to the hilt to set an example if and when we have a
rare case where we are able to catch somebody doing this. I
think it is a very serious thing and I am concerned about the
great increase in the number of these incidents. We need to
watch that to see if it continues to go up.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I would like to ask you, Mr. Walden, whether or not
the DOD or the Air Force have analyzed the threat that would be
posed by military-grade lasers where we have an even greater
threat. As I understand it now, we are talking about lasers
that almost anyone can buy over the counter.
Mr. Walden. I have not looked into that specific area. I
know that Colonel Demitry has looked in that area, but for an
open forum today, it probably would not be appropriate to touch
on some of those issues.
As far as my office, again our hope was to make sure that
we bring a safe and very effective visual warning system about
to aid not only the FAA, but NORAD's mission.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, these military-grade lasers are
something I think would be of interest to the Committee. We may
need a secure briefing to know where we are on them, but I
doubt that al Qaeda will buy lasers across the counter and try
to disable one of our airplanes. So I am very interested in
military-grade lasers.
Mr. Walden, you indicated in your testimony that, oh, first
let me ask whether or not it is possible with the use of the
over-the-counter lasers that both a pilot and a co-pilot could
be disabled in the way Mr. Winder was? Or is it likely that
only one of the pilots would be temporarily disabled?
Mr. Walden. The best way to answer it is, it really kind of
depends. It depends on the weather conditions. It depends on
how accurate you can point the laser. I believe certainly you
can build lasers out there that can reach out a great distance.
Ms. Norton. Including the kinds of lasers that anybody can
buy?
Mr. Walden. Again, I am not familiar so much with the
specific market out there on the lasers. They are sufficiently
powerful enough to at close distances injure an eye. Again, I
would turn to the laser expert certainly from the air crew
point of view and a medical doctor. Colonel Demitry, do you
have any comments on that?
Mr. Demitry. Ma'am, if you and I were to look on the
internet, it would take us less than three minutes to find a
laser that was sufficiently hazardous to permanently disable
the human eye for many miles.
Ms. Norton. So given the distance from which these lasers
have been fired, I take it that you believe that both pilots
could be disabled?
Mr. Demitry. I did not go that far, ma'am, and in open
forum I would prefer to address that question and that scenario
in a closed forum as well. We have thought about those issues
for the military applications. We have been studying this for
many, many years and have multiple active programs. But clearly
in an open forum, any of us could go on the Internet and there
are many, many. You would have to shop it to find the hazardous
laser du jour that you would want to just buy online. After
that, you would be able to put out some damage.
Ms. Norton. Let me move to the NORAD system that has been
tested here in this region. Is the plan to ultimately spread
this kind of laser protection system to other major airports?
This airport has not been one of the airports, I believe, and I
am thankful to say, that has had one of these incidents.
Mr. Walden. Not to my knowledge, but again that would be a
great question for NORAD and the mission that they need to
undertake for their overall Operation Noble Eagle.
Ms. Norton. Final question. I would like to hear what
Captain Winder and Captain McVenes think about the system for
the NORAD system. In my comments, I indicated at least in this
region, if we cannot make radio contact, then there is nothing
else to do virtually. I mean, some Captain may try to shoot the
person. That, of course, is full of risk to the plane and to
the passengers. So basically what we have is either that, if a
pilot happens to be armed, and not all of them are armed, or
shoot down the plane.
So I would like to know what you think, particularly
considering that in your statement, Mr. McVenes, you indicated
that you had some concerns about startling, distracting or
disrupting pilots, causing some kind of safety concern.
Mr. McVenes. Yes, that is pretty much our concerns right
now with the system, but the real issue here is that we are
only familiar with the system like everybody else is in terms
of what we have read in the newspapers. We have not been
involved with any of this, and as the comments I made in my
statement, is we have to have the pilots involved with these
things so that we can adequately learn about them, address them
and provide input as to their applicability out there in the
real world.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Winder, do you have anything to say on
that?
Mr. Winder. No, ma'am. I agree. I think that it will be a
timely manner that those good folks through NORAD will probably
embrace us at ALPA and the Airline Association and we will take
a serious look at it.
Ms. Norton. Very important.
Yes, sir, Mr. Sabatini?
Mr. Sabatini. I would like to volunteer some information
regarding some of the questions you have asked. The testing we
have done clearly indicate that while there is visual
impairment to the flight crew members, it has not in any way
caused loss of control of the aircraft, so operational control
of the aircraft is maintained at all times. Also, when you
consider the sophistication you would need with a laser to
pinpoint and sight an aircraft while it is moving at high
speed, and constantly keep it focused on a pilot's eye, and
when you consider your question of two pilots, to focus on two
pilots at the same time, it leaves a great deal to be desired,
given what is available.
Well, I will stop there.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I think the earliest involvement of
the pilots would be well advised.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We have two votes coming up. Mr. Hayes, we have about six-
and-a-half minutes to divide. Did you or any other members have
questions? If you would like to go ahead, Mr. Hayes, and then
we could give Ms. Johnson the balance of the time, so we will
split it up.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the meeting, and
thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
I am coming at this from a pilot's perspective. A couple of
quick questions, let me ask the questions, and then you can
respond in the time available.
What is the penalty for being caught with a laser now and
lasering an aircraft? And also, how often is this occurring?
What is the legitimate use, Colonel, of the laser that you can
buy over the Internet? And then last but not least, general
aviation obviously is involved in this. We have totally
different kinds of wind screens from very thick glass on a
pressurized aircraft, to thin plastic on a 172. I would ask
that as you proceed with the testing, you make sure that
someone like AOPA provides their 172 Bonanza or whatever to
make sure that you have a good look at what is going on there.
And then also factor in all the other different aspects of
this.
I want to start with the legitimate use of the laser. That
is really puzzling to me.
Mr. Demitry. Sir, I will not take much time. Legitimate
uses would include medical uses, research, even industry is
using lasers more and more in telecommunications. The type of
that are nuisance lasers, just for having one, sir.
Mr. Hayes. They are just like a flashlight. You can point
them, and a medical laser would not be something you would
carry around in your hand.
Mr. Sabatini, what is the penalty now if caught?
Mr. Sabatini. If we use the New Jersey example, they could
be subject to the Patriot Act.
Mr. Hayes. Okay, and is their active jail time? What is the
sentence?
Mr. Sabatini. I do not know what that information is.
Mr. Hayes. Well, it is a very serious matter, so if the FAA
would consult with us and let us know if there are additional
legal things that need to happen.
Mr. Walden?
Mr Walden. Sir, you brought up the question of putting a
laser through a windscreen. We did do some of that testing that
you brought up, and that is particularly looking at different
thicknesses of windscreen off of actual aircraft to
characterize the effect of the visual warning system.
Mr. Hayes. Okay. Well, again, make sure that general
aviation provides any of the assets that again, my windscreen
in front is very thick. The one on the side is not so thick.
First Officer Winder?
Mr. Winder. Sir, from the internet just before I left home,
I want to read you the first line. You asked the question why.
Quote, ``Imagine being able to wield a laser light saber that
extends for 20 miles; Imagine being a standout as you point
your green beam into the heavens or around your neighborhood;
Imagine being known as a wicked laser master.''
Mr. Hayes. Weird stuff. Gotcha.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Winder, did you have permanent eye damage?
Mr. Winder. No, ma'am, not permanent, but I have some
lasting effect, just some mild shadowing and my right eye is
more light-sensitive in extreme light conditions, direct
sunlight or in the snow.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
I guess it is to Mr. Sabatini I need to ask this. What kind
of coordination is going on between the Department of Defense,
the Department of Homeland Security, to address this threat?
What kind of public outreach for education is going on?
Mr. Sabatini. We are working very closely with FBI, DHS and
DOD, and it is the Laser Eye Protection Task Force. It is
ongoing as we speak. They are addressing the issues that we are
describing here today. The public education primarily takes
place as a result of an event like what took place in New
Jersey which was widely publicized and will hopefully educate
the public as to the danger of innocently or maliciously
radiating an aircraft.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have more
questions, but I will withhold them for a vote.
Mr. Mica. We have about two minutes remaining. Any other
members have questions?
I would like to thank our panelists for their participation
today. We may have some additional questions and some of them
may be of a sensitive security nature that we may want to
submit to the panel, so if you could respond to the
subcommittee, we would appreciate it.
I thank each and every one of you for your participation,
for the opportunity to look at what has not been a major
problem, but could pose some serious threats and challenges to
both pilots and passenger safety.
There being no further business then to come before the
Aviation Subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]