A lighting expert who has worked for the Queen has been arrested for shining an £8.45 torch at an RAF Apache helicopter gunship outside his home in the early hours.

Torben Merriott, 63, was woken by what felt and sounded like an ‘earthquake’ outside his bedroom window at 1am.

The grandfather used the torch to identify the aircraft.

He spotted one of two gunships on an exercise just ‘10ft above my garden’ at his farmhouse in Stradbroke near Eye, Suffolk, and called the Ministry of Defence complaint line.

But instead of receiving an apology for the September 18 disturbance, Mr Merriott was visited three weeks later by police, who arrested him on suspicion of endangering an aircraft by dazzling the pilot.

Mr Merriott was taken to Bury St Edmunds police station where he was questioned and held in a cell for nine hours before being bailed pending further inquiries. The torch was also seized by officers.

He is now waiting to hear if he will be charged with endangering an aircraft, which carries a maximum two years in jail.

Mr Merriott, who owns a theatrical lighting firm, insists he did not put the aircraft at risk as he has had professional experience of lighting up flying helicopters at a Buckingham Palace event hosted by the Queen.

‘Don’t tell the Taliban that all they need is an eight-quid torch to bring down multi-million-pound high-tech gunships,’ he said.

I would have thought that Apache pilots would have some kind of defence against this. Hellfire missiles anyone?

Amusing.

I think the real question here is: What the hell was an RAF attack helicopter doing hovering over this guy´s front yard?

This is merely a bureaucratic mess up, I bet that in a few days, there would be a lot of embarrassed statements spewing out of MoD.

Amusing.

I think the real question here is: What the hell was an RAF attack helicopter doing hovering over this guy´s front yard?

Practicing maneuvers. I have had dozens of helicoptors fly over my house because I live near an area where a lot of training is done, from load carrying helicoptors to attack helicoptors. At school we also had fighter planes flying very low as they would use the spire of the abbey to lock on to as a target. It is quite cool.

As for property rights, well we don't have the same sort of rights as Americans do. Besides it is airspace, belongs to the Queen and her military can use as they please.

Practicing maneuvers. I have had dozens of helicoptors fly over my house because I live near an area where a lot of training is done, from load carrying helicoptors to attack helicoptors. At school we also had fighter planes flying very low as they would use the spire of the abbey to lock on to as a target. It is quite cool.

As for property rights, well we don't have the same sort of rights as Americans do. Besides it is airspace, belongs to the Queen and her military can use as they please.

I live near a military base and have has many planes fly over my house as well, but the proximity of the helicopter in the story is ridiculous.

to be fair at this point we only have his word that it was "10ft above my garden". People tend to overestimate distances they want to be long and underestimate distances they want to be short.

It was low enough to make enough noise to wake him from his sleep.

I live near a military base and have has many planes fly over my house as well, but the proximity of the helicopter in the story is ridiculous.

I'm sure the Queen herself would object to her military doing this.

to be fair at this point we only have his word that it was "10ft above my garden". People tend to overestimate distances they want to be long and underestimate distances they want to be short.

It was low enough to make enough noise to wake him from his sleep.

Practicing low level flying quite obviously.

And oh yeah this guy deserves it. you don't shine anything at aircraft, especially at military helicopters where they are likely using their night vision equipment.

He doesn't deserve it. From what I can tell from this story, he wasn't informed of the exercise. It's not much to ask that they tell the owner of the property what will be going on. Or, better yet, don't do it over a guy's farmhouse.

If they inform him, there is a potential terrorist threat. Plus this kind of thing happens all the time (as in aircraft flying over head, quite low) that it would not be worth the time, effort and resources. I am not saying the guy deserves to be punished but am surprised at people's shock and horror at the whole thing.

I don't see where they can even legally do this sort of thing. Does the military have that much free reign?

We haven't heard all the facts on this yet. Let's withhold judgment until we do, especially if everything we know is from one of the worst newspapers in the UK.

Yes they do. Farmers let their fields and land be used by the armed forces if need be. There is nothing illegal about this. They also use national parks such as Dartmoor, Exmoor, the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors, the Brecon Beacons (and some areas are danger areas which you aren't supposed to go into if the warning flag is flying). If you Google 'eye suffolk' and look at the map you see that there fields everywhere. Military aircraft in the countryside are not an uncommon thing. From Devon, to Oxfordshire, Yorkshire, and Suffolk, it shouldn't surpise anyone. Obviously there won't be military aircraft over a city like London.

Think about the size of the UK. It isn't as big as North America so we can't have all of this private military land (even though Catterick, Brecon Beacons and Salisbury Plain are big but probably no where the same size as bases on the other side of the Atlantic plus those are used more for infantry and tanks and artillery).

You're right, I forgot Britain isn't even 2/3 the size of Newfoundland. Tiny country is tiny.

Doesn't stop us kicking arse!

If they inform him, there is a potential terrorist threat. Plus this kind of thing happens all the time (as in aircraft flying over head, quite low) that it would not be worth the time, effort and resources. I am not saying the guy deserves to be punished but am surprised at people's shock and horror at the whole thing.

Even if what he did was dangerous, it's not as if he deserves two years in jail. If he was woken by the helicopter, then he was probably half-asleep anyway, and not totally aware of what was going on.

You got beaten by a bunch of tax evaders and peasants.

Why was the helicopter there long enough for him to grab a flashlight and find it?

Firstly the RAF doesn't even have any Apaches, secondly shining lights at aircraft can be really quite dangerous. He had enough wits to know it was an aircraft so then proceeding to shine a light at it was more than a little silly. Depending on where you live low flying aircraft can be quite common, we often get low flying aircraft in the middle of the night here and it isn't even a flying base.

I don't know the man, but I think it's reasonable to say a 63 year old guy could have a hard time distinguishing what the object was, and felt the need to either confirm or allay his thoughts. The issue here is intent, and the man had no criminal or malicious intent - so far as I can read.

He did however potentially endanger the lives of anyone on that helicopter, obviously a prison sentence wouldn't do anything useful in this case, however it is right that the possible outcome of his actions be pointed out to him.

You're right, I forgot Britain isn't even 2/3 the size of Newfoundland. Tiny country is tiny.

very misleading thread title. This isn't "Use your flashlight, go to jail", it's "dazzle a pilot, go to jail". If I stab someone in the neck with a pen, I'm not being arrested for using a pen.

Not to say that the charge against him isn't bollocks, just that it's bollocks for a very different reason.

PINNACLE® image intensifier tube technology is the latest development in state-of-the-art, tactical night vision equipment, allowing users to complete their mission objectives without being blinded by sudden exposure to bright light. Traditional night vision equipment does not offer this ability. Sudden bright light exposure renders the user ineffective until the lights are turned off â?? or the night vision equipment is removed.

Special Operations teams often face entry into dark dwellings or structures under the cover of night. Night vision equipment is used to enter and navigate once inside. If the lights are suddenly switched on for any reason, traditional night vision equipment will â??bloomâ?? or â??washoutâ?? rendering the user temporarily blind. With PINNACLE® night vision products, users maintain their vision regardless of the amount of light they are exposed to.

He used a flashlight to identify an aircraft, most likely in the way that he is trained(i.e. to specifically NOT dazzle the pilot), and then after identifying the gunship, procured the identification numbers and called it in to the MoD.

In any case, all the evidence(given, based on a single article, so it could change quite a bit) points toward him NOT dazzling the pilot, unless he intentionally tried to get the helicopter away. If the pilot was as close or nearly as close as the man said, onboard equipment most likely would have given off enough light to identify the helicopter. On the contrary, the pilot was probably training with night vision. And unless Britain's military equipment is more outdated than I think, this shouldn't be an issue:



http://www.ownthenight.com/id74.html

Oh, and please provide details of the training you are saying this man received.

Practicing low level flying quite obviously.

And oh yeah this guy deserves it. you don't shine anything at aircraft, especially at military helicopters where they are likely using their night vision equipment.

You got beaten by a bunch of tax evaders and peasants.

There's about as much of a terrorist threat in him not identifying the helicopter hovering at a distance where a $13 flashlight can be shone on it bright enough to either endanger the aircraft or at least identify it. If this does indeed happen all the time as you claim, couldn't the terrorists just sit tight until someone comes hovering low enough to be flashed or shot down or whatever?

And let me clarify: When you say that low-flying military aircraft happens all the time, do you actually have experience of these things happening in the middle of the night, or are you referring to exercises conducted during daylight hours?

So youre telling me that he went out into his front yard in the dark, shined the light up to see what was going on (and don't tell me you would have any idea what was going on) and should get in trouble?

"Mr Merriott, who owns a theatrical lighting firm, insists he did not put the aircraft at risk as he has had professional experience of lighting up flying helicopters at a Buckingham Palace event hosted by the Queen."

I think we can infer that Mr. Merriot has the training to know how not to dazzle a pilot while still lighting a helicopter up, as is his job. If he was hired to do so at Buckingham Palace, Mr. Merriot must be very good at what he does. Although I'm not exactly sure that this would translate to him knowing where to shine a flashlight, it is a good estimate.

So youre telling me that he went out into his front yard in the dark, shined the light up to see what was going on (and don't tell me you would have any idea what was going on) and should get in trouble?

Aircraft have a distinct noise. Most of the time they fly a regular route although I am not sure about this case. Considering it was night time, the pilot would be using Night Vision googles. Shining a torch at someone wearing these will cause the NVG to flare which could result in a helicoptor being in a fatal accident.

there is a distinct difference between a heavily planned event where all participants know what is going to happen and this situation.



yes he should, if he had any common sense he would realise that shining a light up at the aircraft would dazzle the pilot.


oh guys I can find a 1million candle power torch for £10. don't think that because its cheap doesn't mean that it isn't powerful.

Helicoptors and planes have flown very low over me as well when I am at home or in school...

I'm not sure if that's common sense or not.

However, seeing as this guy is apparently extensively trained in lighting helicopters, he must have known he could accidentally dazzled the pilot, so he took great care not to. (Unless someone can prove the pilot was dazzled.)

You can shine a flashlight at the bottom of a helitopter to identify it without dazzling the pilot.

way to ENTIRELY AND ABSOLUTELY miss the point of what I was saying there.

My point was that he is in trouble not because of using a flashlight but what he is accused of using it FOR.

Next time, argue against a point I'm making, not one you dreamed up.

Aircraft have a distinct noise. Most of the time they fly a regular route although I am not sure about this case. Considering it was night time, the pilot would be using Night Vision googles. Shining a torch at someone wearing these will cause the NVG to flare which could result in a helicoptor being in a fatal accident.

there is a distinct difference between a heavily planned event where all participants know what is going to happen and this situation.

yes he should, if he had any common sense he would realise that shining a light up at the aircraft would dazzle the pilot.

laws tend not to take account of the person breaking them being careful. If I'm driving at 100 miles per hour I'm breaking the law just as much if I'm a really skillful driver.

So the question is, very simply, whether it is illegal for someone on the ground to shine a light source at a military helicopter. I don't know the law here.

EDIT: as he hasn't been charged with anything, this is much ado about nothing.