US Coast Guard Night Vision Disabled by FDA

[Lepke]

Seems like someone could issue an executive action to get the thing going. They do it now for everything else.

[deblen]

FLIR Marine - Home

[SunDevil]

I have used the next generation night vision before, but it can't be exported. It also costs a lot, and isn't too high res right now. But, for fog or nighttime, it is great.





I'm not sure why the Coast Guard would have installed equipment that might not be usable. The laser thing does seem like a problem at night, as you know which direction the people being rescued will all be looking towards. And they might fall under the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoc..._Laser_Weapons

[deblen]

This is quite impressive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kdfnzs9Cxo

[Chas.7]

Hello All,
If true, this is just another example of wimpy leadership selecting wimpy warriors.
When I was in the Army I had a US Army boat operators license. Now the Army is requires a USCG license. The Coast Guard did not require its officer to know the Rules of the Road until a Coast Guard vessel was hit by a ship in the 80s. They did require everyone else on the water know the rules.
It seems our military leadership is so willing to follow the instructions outside its logical chain of command.

[a64pilot]

It was called something else and was mounted in a different platform at one time.
But this thing could first scan the area with one type of Laser and any optical glass, whether it be a TV camera or a tank periscope would reflect back rather like a cats eyes does at night when a light shines on them, then all the optical glass would be targeted by a high power Laser that was powerful enough that it would actually fog the prisms in a tanks periscope. You can imagine what it would do to someones eyes.
It has never been used I don't think

Stingray



Lasers are scary things

[dgz3]

There are two problems with this story:
1) it's on Fox news.
2) it's source is a politician

[Taodnt]

An "easier" fix would be to move the Coast Guard back to the Department of Defense. But politicians and bureaucrats do not have a lot of common sense left in them after a few months in the swamp.

[hellosailor]

Well, the Stingray sounds good. After all, if it needs a Bradley just to carry it, imagine how well that justifies a whole new generation of rescue copters. Can anyone say "Sky Queen" ?


The TSA doesn't have to catch anyone. That's not their job. Rather, they are a dog and pony show, better known in milspeak as "psyops" designed to make the public FEEL safe. Unfortunately, that reduces actual safety by pretending the dangers don't exist, or are contained, so no one really attends to the dangers. Which in turn could be seen as both treason (for deceptively and intentionally letting the dangers fester) and domestic terrorism, for scaring the public with groundless alerts and closures.
Like the Pakistani woman in a W. Va. airport bound for Philly, was it? About five years ago, airport closed, woman detained, supposedly her water bottle contained explosives. Big national nooze, but the next day when the FBI labs tested the bottle...a great lack of further information was found, all the FBI could tell was that there had been water in it. And for that, airports were closed?


If the USCG ran like the TSA, we would be required to buy unsinkable boats, and every boat would get that status along with a small note saying "just don't take it off the jackstands or this is void". What sailor hasn't noticed how easy it is to come and go, day or night, in all sorts of places with no supervision.


Donald T. is going to need to teach a lot of Mexicans to swim, if he wants to build that wall high enough and far north enough to keep everyone out. Then we'll just have to make sure we don't anger the Canadians. (sigh)


Tao-
Moving the USCG "back" to the DoD (I'd argue they were never there to being with, except in time of war) would be counterproductive. The USCG legally would be prevented from most of its operations if it were a military agency. When the USCG is on military status, you can tell them "Sod off, I'm not under military chain of command or control" and go on your own way. But as long as they are an administrative agency--you have to obey "officer friendly".


There are very good basic reasons why no one in Congress, or the USCG, wants to see that role change. Soldiers in ships? We've already got that, it is called the USN. And their favorite cargo, the Marine Corps.(G)

[Pathfinder37]

The laser system in question is most likely considered a Class IIIa device (capable of causing eye injury if viewed directly). The manufacturer, not the USCG, just has to go through the process of getting FDA clearance. It's a PITA but just one of those things. The FDA does try to work with DoD and DHS on these issues. Not sure what the resolution would be. The FDA doesn't interfere if a device is used outside US territory since they have no jurisdiction. Perhaps the device could be unlocked and used once the aircraft is outside US territory. Don't know - just a guess.

[a64pilot]

If it's a NATO standard targeting Laser, and it sounds like it is, it's not eye safe, not even close.
But it should be dead easy to disable, unless the USCG is now designating for Hellfires and LGB's, they have no real use for it.
I think an off the shelf system was bought, and one piece of the system doesn't meet safety specs, so use of the whole thing has been denied.

[trifan]

I keep a little gadget stored away that I affectionately call "Yoda" because of the way it looks and the amount of green light it puts out. The specs say "MOD=400m" which means minimum ocular damage distance, so it can't be switched on without the googles being on, too. No pets or other animals in the vicinity, either but it, like a flare, will damn sure get their attention. The beam is visible off to the side so it doesn't take lighting up the cockpit... it is like a green searchlight and only to be used for emergencies or when you run out of matches and need to light something. The US gummint couldn't stop the Chinese company from selling them so they bought the company. It's the American way.

[tankersteve]

Non-eyesafe lasers are fairly common, not just in the .mil world, but with police. And they are not illegal to own by joe schmoe, but the FDA does regulate (prevent) manufacturers from selling them to private individuals. They can be tough to come by, but are available.

I would be worried about the DHS lawyers who are likely being very conservative in their interpretation of a law. This happens all the time when a lawyer is asked to provide a legal opinion, but no one has a true 'expert' opinion. So he tries to interpret a law without truly understanding all facets of the situation, just what he is readily provided and usually not much more. In fact, they often look to precedent from another (maybe similar) agency and make no effort to look at their unique circumstance.

However, if this is truly the case that they (CG) bought something they can't use, then maybe they should have looked harder before they purchased it?

Tankersteve

[FilBrown]

If the laser is used for range finding only and not to illuminate the target why not simply put a cap or cover over the laser output lens?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by FilBrown

If the laser is used for range finding only and not to illuminate the target why not simply put a cap or cover over the laser output lens?

your question displays a lack of experience in dealing with the FDA.
and i do not mean that in any rude way.
be gratefull that you do not have that experience.
it greatly increases your quality of life.