Van B. Nakagawara

Ronald W. Montgomery

Kathryn J. Wood

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

December 2010

Final Report

The Illumination of Aircraft 

at Altitude by Laser Beams: 

A 5-Year Study Period (2004–2008)

DOT/FAA/AM-10/21

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591

OK-11-0024-JAH

Federal Aviation

Administration
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest 

of information exchange. The United States Government 

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.

___________

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine 

technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: 

www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-10/21 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

December 2010

6. Performing Organization Code 

The Illumination of Aircraft at Altitude by Laser Beams: 

A 5-Year Study Period (2004-2008) 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Nakagawara VB, Montgomery RW, Wood KJ 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washington, DC 20591 

15. Supplemental Notes 

This work was accomplished under the approved task PSR Lab.AV9100.

16. Abstract 

INTRODUCTION: Laser illuminations of aircraft in navigable airspace have concerned the aviation 

community for over a decade. The principal apprehension is the effect laser illumination may have on flight 

crew personnel performing landing and departure maneuvers, where procedural requirements are critical. This 

study examines the frequency of aviation-related laser incidents by altitude of occurrence. METHODS: Event 

reports of aircraft illuminated by high-intensity light sources have been collected from various sources and 

entered into a database maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. 

Reported events of laser exposure of civilian aircraft for a 5-year period (January 1, 2004 to December 31, 

2008) were collated and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2,492 laser events occurred in the U.S. during the 

study period. The cockpit environment was illuminated by laser beam in 1,676 (67.3%) events, and altitude 

information was provided in 1,361 (81.2%) of these reports. At altitude levels associated with the FAA’s LaserFree Zone (0–2,000 feet), cockpit illuminations increased from 12.5% to 26.7% for the period, while the 

percentage for Critical Flight Zone equivalent altitudes (>2,000–10,000 feet) decreased from 87.5% to 58.4%. 

For the period, green laser light was reported in 92% of the events where color was identified. 

CONCLUSION: The increasing percentage of aircraft laser illuminations reported at or below 2,000 feet that 

involve green laser light may represent an escalating threat to aviation safety. Low-flying aircraft, which may 

not be within currently established flight hazard zones around airports, need protection due to their increased 

vulnerability to laser illumination and their close proximity to obstacles and terrain. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Aviation, Laser, Laser Events, Safety Document is available to the public through the 

Defense Technical Information Service Center, 

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060; National Technical 

Information Service, Alexandria, VA 22312 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 12 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

iii

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

APPENDIX A: Laser Beam Exposure Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

1

The Illumination of Aircraft at Altitude by Laser Beams: 

A 5-Year Study Period (2004–2008)

INTRODUCTION

Laser illuminations of civilian and military aircraft

in navigable airspace have concerned the aviation community for over a decade. The principal concern is the

affectlaserilluminationmayhaveonflight crewpersonnel

duringlandinganddeparturemaneuverswhenprocedural

requirements are critical. Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR) require a “sterile cockpit” (i.e., only operationally

relevant communication) below10,000 feet to minimize

distractions andreducethepotentialforproceduralerrors

(1). Laser illumination during these critical operations

can create unsafe conditions by distracting or visually

impairing flight crewmembers, thus disrupting cockpit

procedures and crew coordination.

Prior to 1995, laser operators were allowed to project

laser beams into the navigable airspace as long as they did

notexceedtheexposurelimitimposedbyFederalAviation

Administration (FAA)Order 7400.2. Guidancematerial

used to establish this FAA Order included the Food &

Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) “Performance Standards

for Light-Emitting Products” (2). The FDA standard is

based on the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) of

2.54 milliwatts per centimeter square (mW/cm2

), above

which ocular tissue damage may occur from exposure

durations longer than 0.25 second. The recommended

MPE limit, originally developed by the American NationalStandardsInstitute,isusedtocalculatethenominal

ocularhazarddistance(NOHD),whichvariesdepending

on the laser’s output power, wavelength, pulse duration,

and beam divergence (3).

In 1995, FAA Order 7400.2 was revised to establish

lowerlaserexposurelimitsto protect flight crewmembers

from adverse effects in specific zones of airspace around

airports. These adverse effects include annoyance, momentary distraction, and transient visual effects (4) that

consist of:

• Glare—Obscuration of an object in a person’s field

of vision due to a bright light source located near the

sameline-ofsight(e.g., asexperiencedwith oncoming

automobile headlights).

• Flashblindness—Atemporary visualinterferenceeffect

thatpersists afterthesource ofilluminationhas ceased.

• Afterimage—A reverse contrast shadow image left in

the visual field after an exposure to a bright light that

may be distracting and disruptive, and maypersist for

several minutes.

The zones of protected airspace around airports are

known as flight hazard zones (see Figures 1 and 2). These

Figure 1: Aerial view of the flight hazard zones for a two-runway airport. LFZ (left) extends 2 nautical miles (NM) in 

all directions from the runway centerline. It includes an additional 3-NM extension along the runway centerline. CFZ 

(right) includes all airspace surrounding the LFZ within a 10-NM radius of the airport reference point. 
2 

zones are intended to mitigate the hazardous affect of

visible laser radiation by limiting the allowable laser irradiance permitted in that airspace. The Normal Flight

Zone (NFZ) encompasses all navigable airspace not

included within the newly established zones. The Sensitive Flight Zone (SFZ) may be assigned to any airspace

outside the Laser Free Flight Zone (LFZ) and Critical

Flight Zone(CFZ) at the discretion of thelocal air traffic

authorities. Exposure levels are not to exceed the following effective irradiance levels within the corresponding

flight hazard zones:

• LFZ = 50 nanowatt per square centimeter (nW/cm2

);

• CFZ = 5 microwatt per square centimeter (μW/cm2

);

• SFZ = 100 μW/cm2

;

• NFZ = 2.54 mW/cm2

.

A substantial decrease in the number of reported

laser illumination events originating from authorized

outdoor laser demonstrations was observed in the years

following revision of FAA Order 7400.2. During the

fall/winter of 2004 and January of 2005, however, there

was a marked increase in reported laser events that were

attributed to random acts by individuals using handheld

lasers(5). In responseto thisrapid increasein laserevents,

then-Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta held

a press conference at the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical

Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City, OK, to announce

the publication of an Advisory Circular (AC No. 70-2),

entitled “Reporting of LaserIllumination of Aircraft” (6)

(see Figure 3). The AC includes a “Laser Beam Exposure

Questionnaire” to be filled out by the exposed aircrew

member(s) to provide additional data to better define

the nature of the threat and its affect on civil aviation

operations (see Appendix A). These laser event reports

provide a means to monitor and recognize patterns or

similaritiesthat could aid in the prevention or mitigation

of this threat to aviation safety. It was also intended to

improve coordinationwith local and federal law enforcement agenciesto aid inthe apprehensionand prosecution

of responsible individuals.

A database of aircraft laser illumination event reports

has been maintained by CAMI’s Vision Research Team

since these were first recognized as a problem. Analysis

of laserevents provides the means to determineif current

FAA safety policies are adequate to protect aviators and

the flying public. In addition, continued monitoring

of laser events can help determine whether advances

in laser technology and new outdoor laser applications

may adversely affect aviation safety. The present study

examines the frequency of laser illuminations of aircraft

by altitude at the time of the event.

METHODS

Reports of high-intensity lightillumination of civilian

aircraftwere collected from numeroussourcesincluding:

Washington Operations Control Center, FAA regional

offices,Transportation SecurityAdministration,Department of Homeland Security/Federal Bureau Investigation information bulletin, the FAA’s Office of Accident

Investigation, newspaper articles and Internet sites, and

interviews with illuminated personnel. Details from

these reports were entered into a computer database and

maintained by the Vision Research Team.

Data fromreportsoflaserilluminationeventsinvolving

civilian aircraft in the United States for a 5-year period

(January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2008) were analyzed. 

Frequency and altitude at thetime ofexposure were used

Figure 3: Issuance of AC No. 70-2 announced by thenSecretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on January 12, 

2005, at a press conference held at the FAA Civil Aerospace 

Medical Institute.

Figure 2: A profile view of protected flight zones around 

a single-runway airport. The LFZ extends 5 NM beyond 

the runway ends and up to 2,000 feet above ground level 

(AGL). The CFZ includes airspace surrounding the LFZ, 

out to 10 NM and up to 10,000 feet AGL. 
3

to stratify eventsinto 1,000-footincrements andgrouped

into zones of airspace “equivalent in altitude” to those

established around airports (i.e., flight hazard zones1

). 

Additionally, data from the laser illumination reports

were used to evaluate the adverse visual and operational

effects experienced by pilots within the range of altitude

corresponding to the flight hazard zones around airports.

RESULTS

A total of 2,587 aircraft illumination events were

reported during the study period. Of these, 2,492

(96.3%) events took place within the United States (i.e.,

49 states plus the District of Columbia). The cockpit

environment was illuminated by a laser beam in 1,676

(67.3%) events (see Figure 4). From 2004 to 2008, the

total number of aircraft illuminations increased from 46

to 988, which included an increase from 27 to 767 in

cockpit illuminations.

Altitudeinformationwasprovidedin1,361(81.2%)of

the 1,676 laser illumination reports in which the cockpit

wasilluminated(seeTable1). Reportsforthe5-yearstudy

1 Note: The proximity to the nearest airport of a laser illumination

was often not included in the information provided in the event

report. For this study, laser events that occurred within the range of

altitudes defined by a zone of protected airspace (i.e., flight hazard

zone) were analyzed and referred to as having occurred within that

zone. The Sensitive Fight Zone was not used in this analysis as it

may be assigned to any zone of airspace at the discretion of the local

air traffic authority.

Table 1. Frequency and (Percentage) of Cockpit Illuminations by Altitude and Year 

Altitude (ft.) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL

0 – 1,000 1

(6.3)

7

(4.7)

12

(5.4)

40

(11.2)

66

(10.7)

126

(9.3)

1001 - 2,000 1

(6.3)

13

(8.8)

36

(16.1)

51

(14.2)

98

(15.9)

199

(14.6)

LFZ 2

(12.5)

20

(13.5)

48

(21.4)

91

(25.4)

164

(26.7)

325

(23.9)

2,001 - 3,000 5

(31.3)

18

(12.2)

31

(13.8)

72

(20.1)

91

(14.8)

217

(15.9)

3,001 - 4,000 2

(12.5)

18

(12.2)

24

(10.7)

35

(9.8)

53

(8.6)

132

(9.7)

4,001 - 5,000 1

(6.3)

12

(8.1)

27

(12.1)

30

(8.4)

43

(7.0)

113

(8.3)

5,001 - 6,000 1

(6.3)

20

(13.5)

24

(10.7)

29

(8.1)

53

(8.6)

127

(9.3)

6,001 - 7,000 0

(0)

8

(5.4)

19

(8.5)

22

(6.1)

35

(5.7)

84

(6.2)

7,001 - 8,000 2

(12.5)

8

(5.4)

13

(5.8)

15

(4.2)

33

(5.4)

71

(5.2)

8,001 - 9,000 1

(6.3)

7

(4.7)

7

(3.1)

11

(3.1)

17

(2.8)

43

(3.2)

9,001 - 10,000 2

(12.5)

5

(3.4)

11

(4.9)

9

(2.5)

34

(5.5)

61

(4.5)

CFZ 14

(87.5)

96

(64.9)

156

(69.6)

223

(62.3)

359

(58.4)

848

(62.3)

NFZ (>10,000) 0

(0)

32

(21.6)

20

(8.9)

44

(12.3)

92

(15.0)

188

(13.8)

Total Cockpit Illuminations 16

(1.2)

148

(10.9)

224

(16.5)

358

(26.3)

615

(45.2)

1361 

(100)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Cockpit 27 173 245 464 767

Aircraft 46 337 446 675 988

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 4: Frequency of aircraft and cockpit illuminations by year.

period included 325 (23.9%) cockpit illuminations that

occurred within the LFZ (at or below 2,000 feet), while

the majority of these events, 848 (62.3%), occurred

within the altitude limits defined by the CFZ (> 2,000

to 10,000 feet). Relatively few laser exposures (13.8%)

were reported above 10,000 feet.

Of the 1,361 cockpit illumination events reported

for the study period, only 1.2% occurred in 2004, while

almost half occurred in 2008. The percentage of cockpit

illuminationsshowanoverall increase at altitudesequivalentto that ofthe LFZ(≤ 2,000 feet),from12.5%(2004)

to 26.7% (2008). At altitudes equivalent to that of the

NFZ(>10,000feet), cockpitilluminationsincreasedfrom

0% (2004) to 15% (2008). The percentage of cockpit
4 

illuminations, however, deceased from 87.5% (2004) to

58.4% (2008) within altitudes equivalent to that of the

CFZ (≥ 2,000 to 10,000 feet).

Adverseeffectsincluded reports of annoyance/distraction,

visual effects, operational problems, and pain/injury (see

Table 2). One or more adverse effects were noted in 145 of

the 1,361 reported cockpit illuminations when altitude was

known, while another 39 reports provided no altitude data. 

Of the 145 laser exposures, the majority (126, or 87%) occurred at 10,000 feet AGL or less (within theequivalent LFZ

and CFZ). Few adverse effects occurred above 10,000 feet

(19 reports, or 13%).

DISCUSSION

Prior to the issuance of AC 70-2, laser event reports were

often not forwarded to the proper authorities in a timely

manner, and the information on some events was often

incomplete. Since issuance of the AC in January 2005, laser

reports have become more reliable in the timeliness of delivery and provide more detailed and useful information. In

the first year following introduction of the AC, the number

of event reports increased 633%, and the review performed

by this study confirms the quality of data being provided has

improvedsubstantially. The continuedincreaseinthenumber

of aircraft illumination reports overthelast years of thestudy,

however, suggests that more remains to be done to curb the

continuing escalation of inappropriate outdoor laser activity.

The study data revealed that commercial air carriers were

at greatest risk of laser illumination. When the type of flight

was provided in theevent reports, morethan 73% (1,693) of

all aircraft illumination events were identified as commercial

carriers (see Figure 5). General aviation (GA) accounted for

less than 18% (411) of all event reports. Although few in

number,GApilotsmaybemore atriskfor anaviationaccident

from a laser illumination, as they rarely fly with a co-pilot

and would have fewer options — including relinquishing

control of the aircraft — should temporary disorientation

or visual impairment to the pilot occur. Law enforcement

(5%) and medical evacuation (2%) flights involved mostly

rotary-wing aircraft that are easy targets for individuals with

handheldlaserdevices,sincesuchflights arenormallyflownat

low altitude and atrelatively slowspeed. Pilots flying military

aircraft reported only 3% of the events.

Informationwas provided regarding the phase of flight for

1,218 (73%) of the 1,676 cockpit illumination events (see

Figure 6). The majority of thesereports (69%) involved laser

beamsentering the cockpit when the aircraft was performing

approach maneuvers.

2 This statistic is a concern because the

2 Note: If approach or final approach were documented in the event

report, the event was assigned that phase of flight. However, if there

wasnomentionofthephase offlight, “approach”was assignedto those

events that stated theflight was in/or at their destination airport, and

“final approach” was assigned to those events that stated the aircraft

was cleared for a specific runway.

Table 2. Summary of Visual Effects, Operational and Physiological Problems by Altitude

Visual Effects 

Altitude (ft.) Annoy/ 

Distract Glare FlashBlindness 

Afterimage

Op

Prob

Pain/

Injury 

L

F

Z

C

F

Z

N

F

Z

Total

Effects Arrests 

0 - 1,000 5 1 8 4 7 1 24 - - 24 15 

1,001 - 2,000 15 5 9 6 10 4 29 - - 29 7 

2,001 - 3,000 7 3 9 3 10 3 - 22 - 22 4

3,001 - 4,000 10 3 4 1 6 0 - 17 - 17 2

4,001 - 5,000 3 1 0 0 0 1 - 3 - 3 0

5,001 - 6,000 4 2 0 0 2 1 - 7 - 7 1

6,001 - 7,000 2 0 1 1 0 2 - 5 - 5 0

7,001 - 8,000 3 2 2 1 2 3 - 10 - 10 1

8,001 - 9,000 2 2 0 1 2 2 - 6 - 6 1

9,001 - 10,000 2 1 0 0 1 0 - 3 - 3 1

> 10,000 11 6 5 3 4 3 - - 19 19 1 

No Alt Data 4 0 10 2 8 10 - - - 39 25

TOTAL 68 26 48 22 52 30 53 73 19 184 58 

Military

2.5%

Commercial

73%

General

Aviation

18%

Medical Evac

1.8%

Law

Enforcement

4.8%

Figure 5: Percentage of aircraft illuminations by type of flight 

for the study period.
5

distraction and/or disruption occur when the flight crew is

busy performing critical flight operations at low altitude and

ismost vulnerable. Low-flyinghelicopters accountedfor about

10% of laser exposure reports and may be as vulnerable as

aircraftonapproachmaneuversdueto their closeproximity to

obstacles andterrain. Laserilluminationsduring thedeparture

and enroute phases of flight were reported about 8% each,

followedby thedescentphase,withabout5%reported. These

events may be less problematic since they generally occur at

higher altitude,whichallowsmoretimeforthepilottorecover

from the debilitating effects of laser exposure.

Approximately 70% (1,175) of the laser events were

reported to be at or below the 10,000-foot limit of the

CFZduringthestudyperiod, andonly11%(188)reached

altitudes above 10,000 feet (see Figure 7). However, as

Table 1 illustrates, cockpit illumination above 10,000

feet increased from 0% to 15% from 2004 to 2008. 

This substantial increase may be due to several factors,

including: increased laser activity, improved reporting,

greater public access to more powerful laser devices, and

better visibility of green versus red lasers. About 20% of

the events (327) reported were within the altitude limit

designated for the LFZ (≤ 2,000 feet). In this altitude

range, the percentage of cockpit illuminations per year

more than doubled (from 12.5% to 26.7%) during the

study period. Laser illuminations that occur at lower

altitudes are a concern as they have been shown to be

significantly more disruptive to visual and operational

performancethan exposures ofequal intensity that occur

at higher altitudes (7). Although the data in this study

were categorized into equivalent flight zones for analysis

purposes, approximately 18% of aircraft illuminations

occurred when the aircraft were not in the protected

flight zones of an airport. These were primarily law

enforcement and medical evacuation helicopters that

were likely enroute to or from crime scenes or medical

facilities at the time of the incident. The flight crews

in these aircraft are susceptible to visual impairment

from laser illuminations due to their low-altitude flight

profile and the large, wrap-around bubble canopies on

helicopters that can allow more light to enter and scatter throughout the cockpit. Furthermore, these aircraft

frequently have a single pilot, which adds to the danger

of sudden incapacitation from a laser strike. Based on

these findings, safety guidelines should be considered

for all aircraft that fly at or below 2,000 feet AGL, even

when not in the vicinity of an airport.

Inexpensiveredandred-orangelasers,withwavelengths

ranging from 630 to 680 nanometers (nm), have been in

use by the general public for more than a decade. Green

handheldlasers,however,have gainedpopularity inrecent

years, as thetechnology to producethem has madethem

more affordable. This may explain why green lasers were

identified in 88% of the all cockpit illuminations (see

Figure 8). Another reason for the increased number of

reports is that a green (532 nm) laser beam may appear as

much as 28 times brighter than an equivalently powered

670-nm red laser beam (8). The inherent sensitivity of

photoreceptors in the eye (i.e., peak sensitivity of 555

Figure 6: Percentage of cockpit illuminations by phase of 

flight for the study period.

Descent

5.3%

Enroute

7.8%

Departure Low Flight 7.9%

(Helo)

10%

Approach

45%

Final

Approach

24%

Unknown

19% Normal Flight Zone

(>10K – 40K ft)

11%

Laser Free Zone

(0 - 2K ft)

20%

Critical Flight Zone

(>2K – 10K ft)

50%

Figure 7: Percentage of cockpit illumination by flight zone for 

the study period.

Green

88%

Red

5% Unknown

4% Other

1%

White

2%

Figure 8: Percentage of cockpit illuminations by color.
6 

nm) is responsible for this disproportionate brightness

(see Figure 9). Theextended visual range of these devices

may explain why green laser beams were reported 8.8

times more often than other colors in airspaceequivalent

to that of the LFZ, 12.7 times more in the CFZ, and

19.4 times more in the NFZ.

Recommendations to minimize the effects of laser

illumination were developed based on the analysis of

reports by flight crewmembers that have experienced

laser exposures and in collaboration with international

regulatory agencies (9,10,11). These include:

• Anticipate—When operating in a known orsuspected

laser environment (the non-flying pilot should be

prepared to take control of the aircraft).

• Aviate—Engage the autopilot, check the aircraft’s

configuration, and reestablish a normal flight profile,

if necessary.

• Navigate—Usethebodyofthe aircrafttoblockthelight

by climbing or turning 90o to the beam, if practical.

• Communicate—Inform local air traffic control of the

situationincluding location/directionofbeam,present

location, altitude,etc. Once on the ground, complete

a “Laser Beam Exposure Questionnaire” (AC 70-2).

• Illuminate—Turn up the cockpit lights to constrict

the pupils and minimize further illumination effects.

• Delegate—If one crewmember has avoided exposure,

consider handing over control to the unexposed

crewmember.

• Attenuate—Shieldyoureyeswhenpossible(e.g.,hand,

clipboard, glare shield). Do not look directly at the

laser beam and avoid drawing the attention of other

crewmembers to the beam. 

• Do Not Exacerbate—Avoid rubbing of eyes as this

may result in irritation to the cornea and conjunctiva

of the eye.

• Evaluate—If visual symptoms persist, consult an eye

doctor.

Thesmallnumber ofthe adverseeffectsreported(184)

forthestudyperiodwasonly11%ofthe cockpitilluminations reported (1,676). This number seems surprisingly

low, based on the results of a previous simulator study

in which adverse visual effects were reported in 60% of

all exposure trials (12). The disparity may be due to the

simulator’s exposure stimulus being aligned near to the

pilot’s axisof visionthroughthewindscreen. Additionally,

the irradiance level in one-third of the simulator trials

was at the upper limit of what might be experienced in

a real-world scenario (50 μW/cm2

). It seems likely that

event details concerning adverse visual and operational

effects, however, are not being reported properly. The

hesitance of a pilot to report visual or operational effects from a laser exposure might be motivated by fear

of reprisal or loss of flying privileges from regulatory

agencies (13). Only through the analysis of accurate and

comprehensive data can regulatory policies be tailored

to deal with continuing changes in laser technology and

limit the misuse that threatens aviation safety.

In summary, results of this study show that reporting

oflasereventshasimproveddramatically sinceissuance of

AC 70-2. Fragmented data reporting, however, may still

compromise the analysis process and limit its effectiveness in defining the true extent of the laser illumination

problem. A revised laser exposure questionnaire may

improvedocumentationofthe adverseeffectsexperienced

by crewmembers and provide a better understanding of

the hazards associatedwith laserexposure and howto best

mitigate their affect. In addition, this study also suggests

thatlow-flying aircraft,whichmaynotbewithincurrently

established flight hazard zones around airports, need

protection due to their increased vulnerability to laser

illumination and their proximity to obstacles and terrain.

Figure 9: The human eye’s relative sensitively to light
7

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Transportation. Standard operating procedures for flight deck crewmembers. 

AC No. 120-71. 8/10/00.

2. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Part 1040. 

Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office; April 2007.

3. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Z136.6 -2005, American National Standard for

Safe Use of Lasers Outdoors.

4. Order JO 7400.2G: Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, Part 6. Miscellaneous Procedures,

Chapter 29. Outdoor laser operations. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration:April 8, 2010. AtURL:www.faa.gov/

air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIR/chapter_29.

htm (Accessed: August 2010).

5. Nakagawara VB, Wood KJ, Montgomery RW. A

review of recent laser illumination events in the

aviation environment. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC: Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-06/23. 

Oct 2006. At URL: www.faa.gov/library/reports/

medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/200623.pdf

(Accessed: August 2010).

6. Reporting oflaserillumination of aircraft. FAA-A/C

No. 70-2. January 11, 2005. AtURL:www.airweb.

faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b6507bbbc173030486256f

ab00716236/$FILE/AC%2070-2.pdf (Accessed:

August 2010).

7. Nakagawara VB, Montgomery RW, Dillard A,

McLin L, Connor CW. The effects of laser illumination on operational and visual performance

of pilots during final approach. Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine,

Washington, DC: Report No. DOT/FAA/AM04/9. At URL: www.faa.gov/library/reports/

medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0409.pdf

(Accessed: August 2010).

8. Wyszecki G, Stiles WS. Color science: Concepts

andmethods,Quantitative data and formulae(2nd

ed.). NY, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1982):

pp 392-94. ISBN 0-471-39918-3. 

9. EUROCONTROLSafetyRegulationCommission

(SRC), Safety Regulation Commission Document

- SRC DOC 7; Outdoor laser operations in the

navigable airspace. At URL: www.eurocontrol.int/

src/gallery/content/public/documents/deliverables/

srcdoc7ri.pdf (Accessed: July 2010).

10. Canadian Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulation Group, Air Traffic Standards, Supplementary Instruction (SI); Number 2010/03, CAP 493

MATS Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Lights Signals

and Pyrotechnics, 5.7Malicious use oflasers against

aircraft and ATS personnel. At URL: www.caa.

co.uk/docs/33/CAP493SupplementaryInstruction201003.pdf (Accessed: July 2010).

11. ICAO DOC 9815; Manual on laser emitters and

flight safety, Ed 1. At URL: http://store1.icao.int/

documentItemView.ch2?ID=9425 (Accessed: July

2010).

12. Nakagawara VB, Montgomery RW, Dillard A,

McLin L, Connor CW. The effects of laser illumination on operational and visual performance

of pilots conducting terminal operations. Federal

AviationAdministration,Office ofAerospaceMedicine, Washington, DC: Report No. DOT/FAA/

AM-03/12. At URL: www.faa.gov/library/reports/

medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0312.pdf

(Accessed August 2010).

13. NTSB Aviation Accident Database - NTSB Report No. LAX96IA032. At URL: www.ntsb.gov/

ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001207X04715&ntsbo=

LAX96IA032&akey=1 (Accessed: June 2010).

A1

APPENDIX A