Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: READ THIS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Churchill(hour S from Houston)
    Posts
    1,269

    Default READ THIS- New Laser Bill proposed in USA.

    sorry if this has been already posted but it looked very important to me


    *************************************


    Forums need to be made aware of this.


    From: Patrick Murphy, Exec. Dir.
    Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:31 PM
    To: ilda-list@lists.laserist.org ; laserist-list
    Subject: [ILDA List] Laser bills on fast-track in Congress

    To ILDA Members and interested laserists:

    Last September, ILDA told you about H.R. 5810, a U.S. Congress bill to regulates outdoor laser pointer use. The exact same bill (no new language) has just been introduced in the House as H.R. 386. I understand that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up the bill today, January 26. (I just found out about this an hour ago.)

    Since H.R. 386 has not been changed since it was H.R. 5810, ILDA's position remains the same. ILDA certainly supports pilot safety, but this is NOT a good bill. It is too weak in some areas, and in other areas it could make currently-legal FAA reviewed shows become illegal.

    Because ILDA is concerned that H.R. 386 could lead to partial or complete restrictions on safe, FAA reviewed shows, we ask Members and interested laserists to review the information and to write to your Representative, Senators and key Congressional leaders.
    A fuller analysis of this bill is at http://www.laserpointersafety.com/ru...10/hr5810.html
    ILDA does not agree with this law, and has prepared an improved version which is at http://www.laserpointersafety.com/ru.../laserlaw.html
    The full text of the bill is at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h112-386
    At the ILDA Conference last year, ILDA Members discussed the bill. The consensus was that while the bill says it addresses only laser pointers, it could also be used against legitimate laser shows. For example, a local police officer or prosecutor could believe the bill applies to laser shows and thus shut down a show or even bring charges against the show producer. Obviously, ILDA wants to avoid any situation where laser laws could improperly be applied to legal, safe shows. Additional problems with the bill are discussed in the links above.

    The bill has been introduced in the House Judiciary Committee and also will be introduced shortly in the Senate Judiciary Committee . If reported out of these Committees, it will then be voted on by the House and Senate. If it passes both houses, and the President signs it, then it would become law.

    HOW YOU CAN HELP

    You can help by doing the following:

    Write to your Representatives, Senators, and to key House Judiciary Committee members. Due to this being a hot issue, it is best to fax a letter or send an email. It also helps to send a copy on on paper, sent by U.S. mail -- this shows you care more about this issue than just whipping off an email.

    Attached is a Microsoft Word document and an iWork Pages document you can use as a guide. Be sure to edit the guide, or write your own, so it reflects your own views and so that the Representatives and Senators don't feel they are getting a form letter. Use your own words, clients and experiences.
    You can find a list of Representatives at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml. There is also a handy "Contact My Representative" form on this page. Ask them to not support H.R. 386 in its current form, since it has problems and can be improved as well.
    You can find a list of House Judiciary Committee members at http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. Be sure to write to Lamar Smith, the chairman. Also, if your Representative is on the Committee, be sure to write him or her and ask them to change H.R. 386 or vote against it.
    You can find a list of Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm. Use the drop-down box to find the two Senators from your state. Important: At this time, there is only a House bill (H.R. 386). There is no Senate bill. Be clear to your Senator that you are asking them NOT to co-sponsor any Senate version of H.R. 386. Obviously they cannot vote against it until it comes to the Senate floor.
    You can find a list of Senate Judiciary Committee members at http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm. Be sure to write to Orrin G. Hatch, the chairman. Also, if either of the Senators from your state are on the Committee, be sure to write to them. See the note above, that there is no Senate version but one is expected soon, and that you are against any Senate version if it is identical to H.R. 386.
    If you have any questions, write to me.

    Thank you for your help,

    -- Patrick Murphy, ILDA
    Last edited by hakzaw1; 01-27-2011 at 16:45. Reason: add USA to title

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Churchill(hour S from Houston)
    Posts
    1,269

    Default copy of sample letter-- but write your own- copies do not mean as much

    use these and write your own version too-no one else is going to stand up for us!!!

    Dear [Representative or Senator name]:

    I am concerned that H.R. 386, a recently-introduced bill to regulate laser usage outdoors, is poorly written and may criminalize behavior which is currently legal and safe.

    H.R. 386 will directly jeopardize my ability to do legal laser light shows and displays for companies such as X, Y and Z. The FAA has stated they have “no problem” with laser light shows since we willingly comply with their regulations. But this bill is so poorly written that it contradicts FAA’s current established procedures and gives them no flexibility.

    H.R. 386 provides penalties for anyone who “knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft … or the flight path of such an aircraft.” The admirable intent is to stop individuals with small handheld laser pointers. I certainly support this aspect of the bill. But sometimes laser light shows are used for “pointing” at objects during events such as the Super Bowl and Olympics, and thus laser shows could fall under the jurisdiction of this bill.

    Unfortunately, there are no exceptions in H.R. 386 for laser light shows and displays -- not even for FAA-reviewed and approved shows. Further, FAA already allows safe levels of laser light to be aimed into specified airspace -- but the bill does not recognize this.

    Also, H.R. 386 criminalizes aiming at a “flight path”. Since airplanes criss-cross the sky, at some point the laser’s beam will intersect where an airplane might fly. This is simply poor wording. The problem is with aircraft and not with flight paths.

    The SAE G-10T, an industry group of laser and aviation safety experts, has provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with an improved version of H.R. 386 (based on the same bill introduced last session, H.R. 5810). The SAE G-10T version is better, but even their version has flaws; namely that FAA-approved levels of laser light are not recognized.

    I support a version proposed by the International Laser Display Association, which has worked for laser-aviation safety for many years. The ILDA version punishes deliberate aiming at aircraft (essentially the same as H.R. 386), while also punishing negligent or accidental aircraft illumination based on the amount of laser light, the aircraft’s location within FAA laser safety zones, and whether the use was according to FAA prior review.

    Attached is a copy of the ILDA version. I urge you to reject the current language and instead substitute language that improves the safety aspects while also allowing safe, legal, FAA-reviewed laser light shows and displays. This is not just a matter of economics for laser show companies such as myself. This is also a matter of fairness, of keeping current regulations which are working and of not overreacting in areas where there is no problem.

    Sincerely,


    Name of Laserist
    H.R. 386 current language, with ILDA-suggested strikethroughs Improved language (in bold)
    suggested by laser experts at the International Laser Display Association Notes/Reasons
    SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER AT AN AIRCRAFT
    (a) Offense- Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER AT AN AIRCRAFT
    (a) Offense- Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    The bill should address all lasers in airspace, not just “laser pointers.” It does not matter to an aircraft whether the laser beam is used to point, or for some other purpose such as cutting or welding.
    Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser at an aircraft See above.
    PROHIBITIONS SECTION - Behaviors to be punished
    (a) Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (a) (1) Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser into airspace with the intent to track, target or interfere with aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Two changes:
    1: Cover all laser uses, not just laser pointers
    2: Only criminalize aiming at actual aircraft -- not flight paths. There are so many flight paths that just about anywhere a person could point in the sky will intersect a potential flight path.

    [Note: no punishment of accidental or negligent laser use. The House version only addresses knowing, deliberate use.] (2) Whoever aims the beam of a laser at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, when both of the following conditions are true:
    (a) the calculated or measured beam irradiance on the aircraft, or in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, exceeds limits set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the FAA-specified laser flight zone (Normal, Sensitive, Critical, or Laser-Free) where the aircraft was located, and
    (b) a pilot in the illuminated aircraft files a laser incident report with the FAA.
    ILDA also believes that unknowing or negligent aiming of a laser needs to be punished if
    1: the laser’s brightness exceeds FAA limits, AND
    2: if a pilot saw and complained about the laser.

    Thus, accidental or careless aiming is not prohibited if the light level can be proven to be safe, or if the pilot does not notice or is not bothered by the light.

    DEFINITION SECTION
    (b) As used in this section, the term ‘laser pointer’ means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object. (b) As used in this section, the term `laser' means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam. As previously discussed, the bill should address all lasers in airspace, not just “laser pointers.” It does not matter to an aircraft whether the laser beam is used to point, or for some other purpose such as cutting or welding.
    EXCEPTIONS SECTION -- When it is legal to illuminate aircraft with lasers
    (c) This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft, by-- (c) This section does not prohibit aiming a laser beam at an aircraft, by -- See above.
    (1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct such research and development or flight test operations; (1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct such research and development or flight test operations; No change (ILDA agrees with House version)
    (2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing or training; or (2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing or training; or No change (ILDA agrees with House version)
    (3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send an emergency distress signal. (3) an individual in an emergency situation using a laser to attract the attention of an aircraft for bona fide rescue purposes; or The House version only allows the use of devices specifically intended for emergency signaling. ILDA’s version allows use of any laser.
    If a person in a true, bona fide emergency uses a general-purpose laser pointer to signal an aircraft, they should not be prosecuted.

    [Note: The House version does not permit or acknowledge that FAA currently reviews laser shows. This is a major oversight.] (4) an individual whose laser operations have been submitted to and reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration, when
    (a) the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a letter not objecting to the laser use, and
    (b) the laser is operated in conformity with the Federal Aviation Administration submission.
    ILDA’s language merely codifies current law and practice.
    Outdoor laser shows are already required by the Food and Drug Administration to submit their plans to the FAA for prior review. If the FAA does not object to the show, they issue a “Letter of Non-Objection”. H.R. 386 does not allow this process. ILDA’s version restores current law and practice.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,139

    Default

    Just a brief question.
    does this apply globaly or only in for example US?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by masterpj View Post
    Just a brief question.
    does this apply globaly or only in for example US?
    last time i checked, there was no global government yet
    "its called character briggs..."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaNeK779 View Post
    last time i checked, there was no global government yet

    oops my bad.

    Still sucks though

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    921

    Default

    I might want to comment here, it may be good practice if subjects regarding legislation get tagged with their respective areas. So if there is a discussion about the law on lasers in (US/UK/Netherlands/EU) only, it's easier to ignore for people abroad if they don't have anything sensible to contribute.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Churchill(hour S from Houston)
    Posts
    1,269

    Default OK

    I will change the title to reflect^^^. But If anybody wants to email our Sens/Reps. We Yanks surely would appreciate it -- your country could be next. What effects one effects all.

    'Think Globally-Act Locally'

    hak

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Edit: Apparently passed the senate yesterday afternoon.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,580

    Default

    wouldne't this also make laser range finding experiments to the retro reflectors on the moon illegal?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    I read it. I have no problem with it. I am in favor of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •