U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

21–627 PDF 2005

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

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

VACANCY

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

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

(1)

LASERS: A HAZARD TO AVIATION SAFETY

AND SECURITY?

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.]
2

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 DallasFort 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.
3

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
4

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.
5

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
6

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
7

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 threeand-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.
8

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
9

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
10

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 pi-
11

lot’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 Capabili-
12

ties 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 Re-
13

gion, 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
14

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 realtime 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.
15

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.
16

Mr. WINDER. The FBI got involved immediately, the TSA, AntiTerrorist 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.
17

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
18

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
19

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.
20

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-
21

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
22

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-anda-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.
23

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 lightsensitive 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?
24

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.]
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42Æ