This story isn’t over yet. It started with two failures in West Texas. Near El Paso, the use of a high-energy LOCUST anti-drone laser led to a seven-hour airspace shutdown. Two weeks later, near Fort Hancock, a government drone was shot down by “friendly fire.” Those are not signs of a system under control. They are signs of an operation pushed into shared airspace before the safety side was nailed down.
The problem is not just the technology. It is the negligence, poor coordination, and the sloppy way this was handled. A 20 kW laser does not have to burn through metal or bring down an airplane to become a serious flight hazard. FAA pilot-performance research says 5 µW/cm² (5 millionths of a watt) is enough for significant glare, and 100 µW/cm² is enough for flashblindness and afterimages that can interfere with pilot performance. Plainly, one level can wash out a pilot’s view, and the higher one can knock that vision off enough to affect flying. Not good.
Common sense says the LOCUST beam is kept concentrated. If it spread too wide, it would lose punch. That means the glare and eye-hazard problem may reach well beyond a 2- or 3-mile range. Yet the exact LOCUST hazard envelope has not been made public. So the public is being asked to trust an operation that has already broken down in domestic use.
That is why people have every right to ask for real numbers. What is the eye-hazard distance? What is the visual-interference distance for pilots by day and by night? What are the altitude and line-of-sight limits near airports and flight paths?
If a civil operator had handled something this loosely in shared airspace, the outrage would be immediate.
In aviation, a few seconds of glare, flashblindness, or afterimages at the wrong time can turn into a significant problem.
Agencies that should know better handled this badly. Aviation still does not know the real hazard limits. Until those limits are made public, this stands as a public safety failure.
Is this a real problem? Are “drug cartels” (I guess) flying drones over the border for some reason? If so, and “shooting it down” is the thing to do, if a drone is 20 feet above the ground, there needs to be a LOCUST within 5.5 miles and willing to shoot essentially horizontally.
Two guns so far, and already major warning signs. That looks less like disciplined deployment and more like yahoos operating in a populated area, with people in between and beyond the target still left ignorant of the real effects and collateral risk.
You mean, like ICE in Minneapolis? Sensing a theme, here.
Yes, cartels are using drones for surveillance and attack of BP operations as well as dropping drugs over the border for pickup.
Is there any evidence for this other than Fox News zeitgeist? I can’t seem to find any stats on number of drones flown over the border, number shot down, number of battles between BP and drug cartels across the border, or anything of the like. You’d think any “attack of BP” would be so well publicized for political reasons (and because it’s just plain news).
“https://www.borderreport.com/border-report-live/border-crime/cartels-flew-drones-60000-times-along-us-border-in-six-month-period/”
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the link. I’m just looking for facts, not hyperbole. Some quick checking…
borderreport.com is a Nexstar Media outlet, which donated around $1.5M to mostly conservatives last year. This could imply opinion-based reporting. (Just like NPR, who gave $670k to all democrats last year)
The article in question is just quoting a Trump administration person with no data or supporting evidence.
It confuses repeatedly drones “crossing the border” with those “getting close to the border”. For example, the key statistic quoted is “60,000 such drone flights just south of the border.” So… Not crossing the border. Simultaneously, it says “nearly every day…drones convey illicit narcotics…across US borders”. I’m not sure which it is and at what rate.
Your comment about attacking border patrol is also not supported by this article, which at best quotes the same Trump administrator that drug cartels have used drones to attack the Mexican military on the Mexican side of the border.
Nuance and facts matter particularly on such a politically charged topic.
Not only that, Steve, but tactically, you’d want to mount the laser at the highest elevation you can find. Which means, with a drone 20 feet up, the laser will probably hit the ground if it misses the target. OK in open desert, not so good if there are people around.
I think if I were using drones to smuggle stuff into the US, I’d fly at night, twenty feet up, and following major highways. Let the DEA blind a few truckers, that’ll shut down the sites.
Demanding that the military disclose the specs of some of their latest tech… good luck with that. I have a parcel of air you can swing at, too.
Why the heck should the military “divulge” capabilities of a system being tested against a very serious emerging threat? Why not divulge how to defeat it, too. GEESH!
Further, shooting down a ‘Government drone’ may have been THE purpose at hand? How else are ya gonna test the system? Flight test is just that … TESTING because there are unknowns that need to be explored, systems refined and so on. Failure is an important facet of testing to determine the capabilities and limits of systems. We froze, fried and otherwise abused the A-10 and its GAU-8A Avenger to include firing 30 rounds INSIDE a hangar to test its performance. Despite numerous safety protocols, we managed to shoot a hole in the hangar door of the McKinley Climatic Hangar at Eglin AFB. THAT is the NATURE and purpose of flight test.
Next, this notion that ‘the Public’ is entitled to all the information is fallacious … they’re NOT. Finally, the desert around Fort Hancock isn’t exactly downtown Manhattan. I’ve flown and driven in that area; it looks like the back side of the moon to me. Seems to me to be a perfect place to test such a system. If they properly closed down the airspace and further double checked to ensured that it was sanitized before energizing the weapon … they did their job IMHO. No other explanation for ‘the Public’ is required and that’s that. I’m GLAD they’re testing such systems.
I think the internet, instant gratification via smart phones and constant bombardment by the anti-everything media is burning out people’s noodles. Recall the WWII slogan … “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” That’s good enough for me. I’m not ‘entitled’ to anything more.
I think the title of this article is way, WAY over the top and extremely presumptive, Raf. I don’t see this as negligence or ‘sloppy’ at all. Where the heck did you get that from? As to ‘shutting down the airspace,’ what’re the testers supposed to do … leave it open so some bug smasher can get in there and get blinded? You properly recognized that laser light doesn’t diffuse as regular light does so a large swath of closed NAS IS called for. C’mon … you’re far better than this, Raf. Now then, if you wrote that some C172 driver was blinded and crashed because they melted his/her eyeballs because they didn’t close the airspace … that’d be a far different issue worthy of your time. THIS article isn’t from what I’m reading here.
I was okay, but uncomfortable with your comment up until the last few lines where you implied leave them alone until they blind or kill someone. Rather than disclosure of specific data, ALL agencies involved need to have developed and be following a coordinated plan which so far hasn’t been the case. The public should be able to trust that their safety is protected while systems are developed, tested and deployed.
Having spent >30 years of my life involved with flight test … I can assure you that a ‘plan’ was in place and double checked by higher HQ. The “public” can take that to the bank. The premise of this article is where the problem is. You guys who think that ALL airspace in the NAS is open to you … go try and fly thru area 51 (you won’t be seen again) or DC under VFR. I wasn’t implying that someone should be harmed before action was taken. I was speaking HYPOTHETICALLY!
This article should never have been written! Opining that the testers are “morons” peeps me off!
‘…I can assure you…’
Larry, saying “TRUST ME, BRO” is a silly argument.
What you experienced is not necessarily what is being done now. Things change, quality and processes change. See: Boeing
Unless you’re embedded with the people involved in these systems, you are guessing and have no evidence to back up your claims. Your opinion, now matter how loudly you shout it, is no more valid than anyone’s.
If plans were in place…where are they? Surely, by now, declassified versions exist and can be released. Let the public see what kind of coordination was performed, how the targets were selected, how they were to be identified during the test, etc.
If the drone was a pre-selected target (as you suggested earlier), that should be easily provable. A lightweight throwaway? An overaged Predator? Or an operational system on its own Government mission. A test plan should identify that.
USG can easily answer these questions by releasing the redacted test plans. Should be easy to generate…just black out the last names of the Test Conductors, the Safety Officers, etc, as well as any sensitive technical information on the weapon.
And remember, this wasn’t “flight test,” nor, as I understand it, was at least one of units under control of a military organization. Releasing the declassified test plans would assure the public that *some* attention was being paid to their safety.
Hey, Raf, have you filed an FOIA application yet? 🙂
👍
“guys who think that ALL airspace in the NAS is open to you”
Yup. It’s open to me, unless a chart or a NOTAM closes it, which did not happen in the case to which RAF alluded.
Airspace is open unless it is closed. It is closed if there is a darn good reason, like a hazardous activity happening.
So, Larry, question. Was there something happening or not? There are only two possible answers.
There is no salient reason to divulge the capabilities/limitations of a new weapon, AS LONG AS IT IS TESTED OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC AIRSPACE. Especially a lethal system that cannot distinguish between a threat and party balloons. Send those morons to Area 51 to play with their new toy.
As soon as a TFR is established excluding traffic, the airspace is no longer “public,’ Revisiting my comment — above — I shoulda said that, too. That’s why TFR’s exist … to EXCLUDE users, as necessary. You should know that, Aviatrexx. The testers knew there could be issues so they excluded traffic.
Further, the US Army isn’t normally a part of ‘Area 51.” OH … where did “party balloons” now enter the narrative. Finally … “morons!!” Nice way to address YOUR US Army that keeps you safe to spew? 🤨
https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-24659/Safety-Glasses/Laser-Safety-Glasses
Unorganized government actions have been going on since the start of organized government.
That doesn’t mean we should accept them or fail to push for improvement.
I don’t see any suggestion of that.
I tried to post a link earlier, but laser safe eyewear is readily available. A step up in energy level protection from harmful UV. I am seriously considering a pair.
The Djibouti article points to the same safety problem I am talking about. A laser does not have to bring down an aircraft to become a real hazard. If it affects the crew’s vision, even briefly, that can put the flight, its passengers, and people on the ground at risk. That is reason enough to take this seriously.
https://www.twz.com/20615/us-military-says-chinese-lasers-injured-pilots-flying-a-c-130-near-its-base-in-djibouti
I recently read an opinion piece that said we should supply Ukrainian soldiers with laser pointers for use on Russian pilots. Cheap, plentiful and easy to carry. Sadly, the war has moved mostly into drones now, so not as useful. But it does make a point about the hazards of lasers – even lower powered ones – and piloted aircraft.
The title alone tells me this is someones opinion – not factual information
There is way to much misinformation and political bias in the media. Please keep it out of the aviation world.
Which specific words in the title were not factual, RG, “and”? Or did your own political bias blind you to the prominent label “Commentary” just below the headline? You were reading an “opinion piece”, so I’m filing your posting under “No DUH”.
This was commentary, Richard. It was intended to show the writer’s bias and that’s why it was labeled that way.
Had to look for a minute, but I did find that label now.
I agree with Larry and Richard. This article and others I have seen from Raf are too politically flavored. I would prefer Avbrief keep it factual and unbiased.
Every newspaper, magazine, and TV show has opinion sections. Hell, FOX News testified in court that they’re not providing news but rather performing “entertainment”.
A mix of factual reporting and opinion pieces is totally normal for a journalistic outlet. The piece is labelled as “Commentary” right at the top of the article, below the headline.
You don’t have to love every article an outlet publishes. You don’t have to love every writer. Just like you probably don’t love every car that your favorite manufacturer has ever made, or every airplane that your favorite aviation company has ever supported, or every member of your extended family.
Additionally: What about this is “politically flavored”?
The author did not mention any political party or leader. If you took it as political, that says a whole lot more about you than it does about the author. Why are you being so defensive and sensitive? Why are you interpreting this as threatening to your political beliefs?
This was an opinion piece and was intended to have some ‘flavor.’ We run an opinion piece in most of our newsletters and that’s a vital part of our job.
That’s why it’s called COMMENTARY – not NEWS. And commentary is an important ingredient in a quality journalistic product.
Every military test is required to have a “Test Plan.” These are checked and double checked. Until someone here produces it and shows where it was deviated from and IF so … the reason … all else is hyperbole. These people were not just firing this weapon willy-nilly. There was a reaspn and I doubt if anyone here knows what that is. Myself included. All’s I know is that testing is a highly regimented operation in the military.
So you have an assumption, and you’re trying to make it everyone else’s responsibility to prove or disprove it?
No, Larry, that’s not how being a responsible adult or informed citizen works.
Raf,
I enjoyed your tech analysis. However, missing was the important context invluding nuances of the first “test”. That first “test”resulted immediately with a 10 day TFR, followed shortly by the Secretary of Transportation vivid description on national TV describing multiple drones, positively identified as Mexican Drug Cartel owned and flown. Then the multiple number was whittled down to a dozen drug carrying explosive laden drones proven to have nefarious intentions. Then the 10 day TFR was reduced to 7 hours but no more news of exactly what was neutralized by this particular experimental, untested in a real life scenario laser. Rational minds would assume such quick draw gunfight antics against those bad boy, drug carrying, bomb laden formation of drones… lots of them …at least a dozen… by our government’s military AND national security alphabet groups using LOCUST laser would have bagged a drone. Nope… neutralized an errant PARTY BALLOON!
Round two using the same now publically tested LOCUST laser, our government military did manage to destroy a real life drone, once again converting formerly public use airspace into another testing chunk of airspace via TFR. That drone’s destruction clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of laser lethality…within a kinetic battle environment… which should shout SUCCESS, mission accomplished! Nope! This same laser weapon guided by the same group of people, who followed a similar procedure to positively identify this drone as an aerial threat, enough of a threat to define it as a national security threat, worthy of lethal destruction, happened to be a government military drone. Not any government but the US government owned AND operated military drone.
So far, LOCUST laser has painted on it’s side, one party balloon and one US military owned and flown drone. On the positive side… no melted eyeballs, no melted 172, and no more threatening party balloon. However, so far, LOCUST laser has a record of “eating one of it’s own” which does not provide me with warm fuzzies of national security and sound ADM, aerial decision making in its employment in former public airspace, hijacked by two TFR’s into an experimental test zone by folks who cannot descern friend from foe, or a party ballon from “dozens” of “Mexican Drug Cartel” drug carrying, bomb laden drones.
Sorry Raf, I just felt compelled to add the proper context to your detailed LOCUST laser analysis and your otherwise well thought out opinion piece. Besides, it appears some commentator(s) missed the “party balloon” detail of test one. Only trying to help.
I understand. I appreciate the assist. Thank you 101.