Regulations & Safety
Federal Charges for Laser Strikes on Aircraft Legal and Safety Impacts
Dominic Rios case and FAA data highlight rising laser strike incidents, legal penalties, and aviation safety risks during protests.
In June 2025, a 21-year-old man named Dominic Rios was federally charged for allegedly pointing a green laser at a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) helicopter during a protest in downtown Los Angeles. The laser illuminated the cockpit three times, prompting the pilot to alter the helicopter’s altitude to avoid further strikes. Rios was arrested weeks later after being identified by the helicopter crew and found in possession of the laser pointer.
This incident is not isolated. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), laser strikes on aircraft remain a persistent and growing threat. In 2024 alone, there were 12,840 reported laser incidents in the United States, with California leading the count. These events pose significant safety risks to pilots and passengers and have become increasingly common during periods of civil unrest. The legal and societal implications of such acts are far-reaching and demand a closer look.
This article explores the legal framework governing laser strikes, details the Rios case, examines national trends, and considers both the safety implications and broader societal context. With input from aviation safety experts and legal authorities, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issue and what can be done to address it.
Under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 39A, it is a federal crime to knowingly aim a laser pointer at an aircraft or its flight path. The law defines a laser pointer as any device designed to emit a beam of light for use as a pointer or highlighter. Violators can face up to five years in federal prison and fines up to $250,000. In addition to criminal penalties, the FAA may impose civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation and $30,800 for multiple offenses.
This statute was enacted to address the growing concern over the use of lasers against aircraft, particularly given the increased availability of high-powered devices. The law is enforced in coordination with local and federal agencies, including the FBI and FAA, especially in cases involving repeat offenders or incidents during public events.
Importantly, state and local jurisdictions may have their own laws that complement federal statutes. These can include additional penalties or restrictions on the sale and possession of high-powered laser devices, enhancing the overall legal framework designed to deter such behavior.
“Laser strikes on aircraft are treated as federal crimes due to their potential to cause catastrophic accidents during flight operations.”, FAA
When laser strikes occur, especially during high-profile events like protests, jurisdictional coordination becomes crucial. In the case of Dominic Rios, the LAPD worked closely with the FBI to investigate the incident. The helicopter crew identified Rios, and LAPD ground officers arrested him shortly thereafter. The federal complaint was then filed by the FBI, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense.
Another similar case occurred just days later. Antonio DeLaRosa was charged for allegedly pointing a green laser at an LAPD helicopter during a protest in San Pedro. These cases highlight a pattern of laser use during protests and underscore the need for coordinated responses among local, state, and federal authorities. Such coordination ensures that offenders are held accountable under the most appropriate legal framework and that investigations are thorough and effective. It also allows for the sharing of resources and expertise, which is essential in complex cases involving multiple jurisdictions and public safety concerns.
The incident involving Dominic Rios occurred on June 10, 2025, during a protest in downtown Los Angeles. An LAPD helicopter flying at approximately 950 feet was hit three times by a green laser, which illuminated the cockpit and temporarily impaired the crew’s vision. The pilot was forced to change altitude to avoid further strikes.
The helicopter crew identified the source of the laser, and LAPD officers on the ground apprehended Rios. A green laser pointer was found in his pocket, and he reportedly admitted to using it. The FBI conducted further testing, confirming that the laser matched the wavelength of the one used during the incident.
Rios now faces a federal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 39A. If convicted, he could serve up to five years in prison. The case is part of a broader trend of laser strikes during periods of civil unrest, raising questions about intent, public safety, and legal accountability.
The immediate consequence of the laser strike was a change in flight altitude, which affected the helicopter’s surveillance capabilities. Such disruptions are not just operationally inconvenient, they pose real safety risks to the crew and the public below.
Laser strikes can cause temporary blindness, disorientation, and even permanent eye damage. These effects are especially dangerous during critical phases of flight, such as takeoff and landing. Since 2010, there have been 328 reported injuries to pilots due to laser exposure.
In this context, the Rios case illustrates how even a brief act can have significant consequences. It also emphasizes the importance of public education and legal deterrents to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The FAA began tracking laser strikes in 2010, and the numbers have steadily increased. In 2024, there were 12,840 reported incidents, a slight decrease from the 13,304 reported in 2023. Despite the dip, the numbers remain high, indicating that the problem is far from resolved. California consistently reports the highest number of laser strikes, with 1,489 in 2024 alone. Other states with high incident rates include Florida and Texas. The FAA attributes the rise in part to the availability of inexpensive, high-powered lasers, many of which are sold online for as little as $20.
Green lasers are particularly problematic because they are more visible to the human eye than red lasers. This makes them more effective, and more dangerous, when aimed at aircraft. The combination of affordability, visibility, and lack of awareness contributes to the ongoing issue.
Laser strikes often spike during periods of civil unrest. In June 2025, multiple incidents were reported during protests in Los Angeles, including the cases involving Rios and DeLaRosa. These events suggest that lasers are sometimes used deliberately to disrupt law enforcement operations.
During protests, helicopters are commonly used for aerial surveillance, making them targets for individuals looking to interfere with police activities. The use of lasers in these contexts raises additional concerns about intent and the potential for escalation.
Law enforcement agencies are adapting by deploying additional aircraft, equipping helicopters with laser detection systems, and using drones to identify offenders. However, these measures require significant resources and coordination.
Pilots are trained to respond to laser strikes by averting their eyes, increasing cockpit lighting to reduce pupil dilation, and using physical barriers to block the beam. These strategies can mitigate some of the immediate effects, but they are not foolproof.
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) recommends that all pilots undergo laser strike response training. They also advocate for the installation of anti-laser coatings on cockpit windows, although cost remains a barrier for widespread adoption.
According to ALPA, 67% of laser strikes occur during takeoff or landing, times when pilots are most vulnerable. The organization continues to push for regulatory changes and increased public awareness to reduce the frequency of these incidents. “Lasers transform routine flights into emergencies. Prosecution must be paired with prevention, public education is as vital as penalties.”, Captain Joe DePete, ALPA President
Experts agree that legal penalties alone are not enough to deter laser strikes. Public awareness campaigns, such as those run by the FAA, are essential. These campaigns use social media, airport signage, and educational videos to inform the public about the dangers and penalties associated with laser strikes.
Some experts have called for stricter regulations on the sale of high-powered lasers. In Canada, for example, lasers above a certain power threshold require a permit. Similar measures in the U.S. could help reduce the number of incidents.
Technology also plays a role. Systems like LaserTrac can detect the origin of a laser beam in real-time, allowing for faster law enforcement response. These tools are still in development but show promise in addressing the issue more proactively.
The case of Dominic Rios highlights a growing threat to aviation safety. With over 12,000 incidents reported annually, laser strikes are a serious issue that demands urgent attention. The legal framework is in place, but enforcement, public education, and technological innovation must work in tandem to address the problem effectively.
As protests and civil unrest continue to be part of the societal landscape, the misuse of laser pointers will likely remain a concern. By understanding the risks, improving coordination among agencies, and educating the public, we can work toward a safer airspace for everyone.
What is the penalty for pointing a laser at an aircraft? Why are green lasers more dangerous than red lasers? How many laser strikes were reported in 2024? Sources: CBS News Los Angeles, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Code Title 18 § 39A, Air Line Pilots Association
Federal Charges for Laser Strikes on Aircraft: Legal, Safety, and Protest Implications
Legal Framework and Federal Statutes
Federal Statutes and Penalties
Jurisdictional Coordination
The Dominic Rios Case: A Detailed Analysis
Event Chronology and Evidence
Operational and Safety Impacts
National Trends and Contributing Factors
Statistical Overview
Protests and Civil Unrest
Aviation Safety and Expert Recommendations
Mitigation Strategies for Pilots
Policy and Public Awareness
Conclusion
FAQ
Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 39A), offenders can face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. The FAA may also impose civil penalties.
Green lasers are more visible to the human eye and can cause greater visual disruption, especially at night or during low-light conditions.
The FAA reported 12,840 laser strikes on aircraft in the United States in 2024, with California leading the count at 1,489 incidents.
Photo Credit: Reddit
Regulations & Safety
FAA Mandates Merit-Based Pilot Hiring in New Operations Specification
The FAA issues a mandatory directive requiring U.S. airlines to adopt merit-based pilot hiring and end race or gender-based recruitment programs.
This article is based on an official press release from the FAA.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has announced a significant shift in federal aviation policy, directing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue a new mandatory “Operations Specification” (OpSpec) for all commercial airlines. The directive requires carriers to formally commit to merit-based hiring practices for pilots and certify the termination of recruitment programs based on race or gender.
The announcement, released through the FAA newsroom, frames the initiative as a measure to “purge DEI from our skies” and restore a focus on technical qualifications. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the move aligns with President Trump’s Executive Order on Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.
This policy marks a sharp departure from the previous administration’s approach, with Secretary Duffy explicitly criticizing prior directives as “absurd” and emphasizing that safety must remain the sole priority in aviation recruitment.
Under the new FAA directive, all U.S. commercial carriers must adopt the updated OpSpec, which legally obligates them to certify that their pilot hiring processes are exclusively merit-based. The FAA stated that failure to comply with this certification could subject airlines to federal investigation.
In the official release, Secretary Duffy emphasized the administration’s stance that demographic factors should play no role in the cockpit.
“When families board their aircraft, they should fly with confidence knowing the pilot behind the controls is the best of the best. The American people don’t care what their pilot looks like or their gender, they just care that they are most qualified man or woman for the job.”
, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy
The FAA has indicated that the new OpSpec is a “commonsense measure” designed to increase transparency between passengers and airlines. While the agency acknowledged that it has already raised performance standards and dismantled internal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, the new mandate extends these requirements directly to private carriers. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford supported the Secretary’s position, stating that the agency’s primary focus remains the safety of the traveling public.
“It is a bare minimum expectation for airlines to hire the most qualified individual when making someone responsible for hundreds of lives at a time. Someone’s race, sex, or creed, has nothing to do with their ability to fly and land aircraft safely.”
, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford
The directive is part of a broader effort by the DOT to roll back policies established during the Biden-Buttigieg era. The press release explicitly mentioned the reversal of directives that “wasted time renaming cockpits to flight decks,” signaling a return to traditional aviation terminology and a rejection of language changes viewed by the current administration as ideological.
According to the FAA statement, the agency is acting on “allegations of airlines hiring based on race and sex,” though specific carriers were not named in the release. The mandate aims to ensure that technical knowledge, cognitive skills, and piloting experience are the only metrics used in hiring decisions.
This new OpSpec represents a significant regulatory pivot for the U.S. aviation industry. By formalizing “merit-based” hiring into a mandatory Operations Specification, the FAA is moving the issue from political rhetoric to regulatory enforcement. Airlines, which operate under strict FAA certification rules, will likely need to review their internal HR policies to ensure they can sign the required certification without legal exposure.
While major U.S. airlines have historically maintained that safety is their top priority, many had also publicly embraced diversity initiatives in recent years to broaden their pilot pipelines. The new directive may force a restructuring of these programs to avoid the threat of federal investigation. It remains to be seen how the FAA will define “merit” in a legal context if an airline’s hiring practices are challenged, or how this mandate will interact with existing equal opportunity employment laws.
What is an Operations Specification (OpSpec)? Does this ban diversity in hiring? What happens if an airline does not comply?
Transportation Secretary Duffy Announces Mandate for Merit-Based Pilot Hiring, Targets DEI Initiatives
New “Operations Specification” Mandate
Enforcement and Compliance
Shift in Federal Aviation Policy
AirPro News analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
An OpSpec is a legal document issued by the FAA to an airline that outlines the specific authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which the airline must operate. It is legally binding.
The directive requires hiring to be “exclusively merit-based” and demands certification that race or sex-based hiring practices are terminated. It frames DEI initiatives as contrary to merit-based principles.
According to the press release, failure to certify compliance with the new mandate will subject the airline to a federal investigation.
Sources
Photo Credit: Pilot Headquarters
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Report Blames FAA Airspace Failures for Deadly Potomac Midair Collision
The NTSB final report identifies FAA airspace design flaws and lack of collision avoidance tech as causes of the 67-fatality Potomac midair collision near DCA.
This article is based on an official report and press materials from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued its final report on the catastrophic midair collision between a Bombardier CRJ700 and a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk over the Potomac River. In findings released on January 27, 2026, the Board determined that the accident, which claimed 67 lives on January 29, 2025, was driven primarily by “deep underlying systemic failures” within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) airspace design rather than simple pilot error.
The collision, which occurred approximately 0.5 miles southeast of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), resulted in the deaths of all 64 passengers and crew aboard American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by PSA Airlines) and the three crew members of the Army Helicopters. It stands as the deadliest U.S. commercial aviation disaster since 2001, ending a 16-year safety streak for U.S. passenger airlines.
According to the NTSB’s Investigation (DCA25MA108), the probable cause was the FAA’s failure to separate helicopter routes from commercial approach paths, compounded by an overreliance on “see and avoid” visual separation protocols in a complex, high-traffic environment.
The NTSB report identifies the proximity of “Route 4”, a published helicopter route along the Potomac River, to the active approach path for Runway 33 at DCA as the critical flaw. Investigators found that the FAA had placed these routes without sufficient vertical or lateral separation, creating a hazard that went unmitigated despite previous safety recommendations.
At the time of the accident, air traffic control relied on pilots to visually identify and avoid other aircraft. However, the NTSB concluded that this method was inadequate for the conditions present on the night of the crash. Cockpit simulations conducted during the investigation revealed that the Black Hawk’s position lights were “barely visible” to the CRJ700 crew against the bright backdrop of Washington, D.C., city lights until mere seconds before impact.
“This complex and comprehensive one-year investigation identified serious and long-standing safety gaps in the airspace over our nation’s capital. Sadly, the conditions for this tragedy were in place long before the night of Jan. 29.”
, Jennifer Homendy, NTSB Chair
While the primary blame was placed on airspace design, the NTSB identified several contributing factors related to equipment and military oversight. The investigation found that the Black Hawk crew likely believed they were complying with the route’s 200-foot altitude ceiling. However, due to allowable equipment tolerances and airflow disruption caused by wing-mounted stores, the helicopter was actually flying at approximately 300 feet, 100 feet higher than the crew’s instruments indicated. This deviation placed the helicopter directly into the descent path of the incoming commercial jet.
The report highlighted a critical lack of collision avoidance technology on both aircraft:
NTSB simulations indicated that if the CRJ700 had been equipped with functioning ADS-B In technology, the crew could have received an alert 59 seconds before the collision, potentially allowing enough time to take evasive action.
One of the most startling revelations in the final report is the frequency of similar conflicts in the airspace surrounding DCA. The investigation uncovered that between October 2021 and December 2024, there were 15,214 occurrences where an airplane and a helicopter were separated by less than one nautical mile laterally and 400 feet vertically.
NTSB Board Member Michael Graham described the accident as the result of a “multitude of errors,” noting that the sheer volume of near-miss data suggests a failure by organizations to foster robust safety cultures that would have identified the risk earlier.
The revelation of over 15,000 proximity events in just three years raises serious questions about the efficacy of voluntary reporting systems and the FAA’s internal review processes. While the “see and avoid” concept is a cornerstone of VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight, applying it as a primary separation tool in one of the nation’s most restricted and congested airspaces appears, in hindsight, to be a calculated risk that failed.
This report will likely force a paradigm shift in how mixed-use airspace is managed near major metropolitan airports. The days of relying on visual separation for military and general aviation traffic operating underneath heavy commercial corridors may be ending, replaced by rigid positive control and mandatory electronic conspicuity.
In response to the tragedy, the NTSB has issued 50 new safety recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence. Key directives include:
Following the accident, the FAA temporarily closed Route 4. The NTSB’s findings effectively recommend that this closure be made permanent or that the route undergo a drastic redesign to eliminate the conflict with commercial traffic.
Sources: NTSB Final Report (AIR-26-02), NTSB Investigation Page (DCA25MA108)
NTSB Final Report: Systemic Airspace Failures Caused Fatal Potomac Midair Collision
Probable Cause: Airspace Design and Regulatory Oversight
The Failure of Visual Separation
Contributing Factors: Technology and Equipment Gaps
Altimeter Discrepancies
Missing Safety Technology
A History of Near Misses
AirPro News Analysis
Recommendations and Path Forward
Sources
Photo Credit: NTSB
Regulations & Safety
British Tourist Arrested for Damage at Hong Kong International Airport
A British tourist was arrested at Hong Kong International Airport for damaging kiosks and carrying controlled substances. Charges include criminal damage and possession.
This article summarizes reporting by Fox News and local Hong Kong media.
A 35-year-old British national has been arrested in Hong Kong after allegedly destroying multiple check-in counters and airport equipment in a violent outburst early Monday morning. The incident, which took place at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA), was captured on video and has since circulated widely on social media platforms.
According to reporting by Fox News and local authorities, the tourist launched the attack at approximately 6:00 AM in Terminal 1. Witnesses and security footage show a man using a metal queue barrier to smash self-check-in kiosks and glass panels. Police arrived shortly after the disturbance began and detained the suspect at a nearby bus unloading area.
While the motive remains under investigation, the event has drawn significant attention due to the severity of the damage and the subsequent discovery of controlled substances in the suspect’s possession.
The rampage occurred in Aisle J of the departure hall, a busy section of the airport. Reports indicate that the suspect, who had been in Hong Kong since November 2025, arrived at the airport with the intention of purchasing a ticket to leave the city. However, for reasons yet to be confirmed, he became agitated and began damaging airport property.
Local media reports state that the man toppled railings and used a heavy metal stanchion to strike the screens of approximately 10 self-check-in kiosks. He also reportedly damaged service counters and a glass panel. Airport Authority staff intervened verbally, warning the man to stop, before police officers secured the scene.
Despite the destruction in Aisle J, the Airport Authority confirmed that overall airport operations continued without significant disruption. The damaged kiosks were immediately cordoned off and removed from service.
Following the arrest, the Hong Kong Police Force laid two specific charges against the tourist. The legal consequences for these offenses in Hong Kong can be severe. The primary charge involves criminal damage under the Crimes Ordinance. This offense covers the destruction of the airport’s high-tech kiosks and infrastructure. In Hong Kong, criminal damage is a serious offense; depending on the value of the property destroyed and the court’s ruling, penalties can include imprisonment.
During a search of the suspect’s backpack, police reportedly discovered four pills of sildenafil (commonly known as Viagra). Under Hong Kong’s Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, sildenafil is classified as a “Part 1 poison.”
Unlike in some Western jurisdictions where such medication may be more easily accessible, Hong Kong maintains strict controls. Possession of a Part 1 poison without a doctor’s prescription is a criminal offense. Offenders can face a maximum fine of HK$100,000 (approximately US$12,800) and up to two years in prison.
“Airport Authority staff and airport security personnel rushed to the scene and warned the man to stop causing further damage.”
, Statement attributed to Airport Authority Hong Kong
Security Response and Infrastructure Resilience
This incident highlights the vulnerability of open-plan airport terminals to sudden acts of aggression, yet it also demonstrates the effectiveness of rapid security deployment. While the physical damage to 10 kiosks represents a significant financial cost, the containment of the suspect before he could harm passengers or breach secure airside areas suggests that HKIA’s layered security protocols functioned as intended.
Furthermore, the immediate isolation of the damaged equipment allowed the airport to maintain operational continuity, a critical factor for one of the world’s busiest aviation hubs. The incident serves as a reminder for international travelers to be keenly aware of local laws regarding pharmaceuticals, as regulations regarding common medications can vary drastically across borders.
British Tourist Arrested Following Rampage at Hong Kong International Airport
Details of the Terminal 1 Incident
Charges and Legal Implications
Criminal Damage
Possession of Controlled Substances
AirPro News Analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources
Photo Credit: X
-
Regulations & Safety4 days agoFour Killed in Tennessee-Registered Plane Crash Near Steamboat Springs
-
Regulations & Safety3 days agoJet2 Flight Diverts to Brussels After Violent Midair Altercation
-
Business Aviation5 days agoBombardier Exceeds 2025 Targets and Projects $10B Revenue in 2026
-
Business Aviation7 days agoBombardier Secures Major Challenger 3500 Order from Vista Global
-
Regulations & Safety6 days agoArik Air Boeing 737-700 Diverts to Benin After Engine Failure