Drones threatening commercial a/c?

[airpolice]

That would involve jamming all sorts of other devices in the area, because modern RC systems use spread spectrum (typically at 2.4 GHz, at lower frequencies for longer ranges up to 100 km). What is needed is an inexpensive transponder (e.g. uAvionix Ping200S ADS-B/Mode S Transponder) which all aircraft and secondary radars within some decent distance can pick up, just as AIS does for surface vessels. Of course, that doesn't in any way justify flying drones near airports, but this sort of technology should resolve the problems of flying remotely piloted aircraft in all appropriate airspace. The technology for UAVs is remarkably powerful and inexpensive, giving small electric craft an operational radius of about 100km, with full video ("first person view") and flight instrument data seen by the pilot.


Really, 100Km & inexpensive?

[rottenray]

Really, 100Km & inexpensive?

Well, no, not really.

Some of the higher end units offer range "up to 2 miles" between the controller and the aircraft, but, remember, that's a radius.

So you can't be 2 miles up and 2 miles away.

If it was, in fact, a drone, we're probably looking at something modified by a knowledgeable individual for greater range.

(As in optimize the antennae in both the controller and the craft, find all the wobbly grounds in the craft and correct them, and perhaps add a ground plane to the controller. The last part would be inconvenient to drag around.)

But why the f*ck someone that smart would fly into commercial airspace is beyond me.

Unless...

[czarnajama]

Really, 100Km & inexpensive?

Here is a UAV (not a multicopter) developed and sold for both commercial users and amateur builders. Flown to 13,000 feet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpuhDhk8WrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19RDaBTwC6I

Here is an off-the-shelf model capable of 100 km radius: details presented by a world expert (in China) on "drones" of all kinds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRAH-E0bczA

And two actual 100 km out and back flights of similar craft (lots of details):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqMm_gzuRYI&t=33s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0

These are all examples of people who are essentially hobbyists integrating off-the-shelf equipment. The technology is well established and anybody can build and fly an FPV UAV with IFR gear. It can even be completely automated with on-board software:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RcwKYpTEWE

[Flying Binghi]

Via czarnajama:
"...can even be completely automated with on-board software..."

I think that detail is something a lot of people don't fully understand yet. The cheap technology has been around a while now for a fully preprogrammed autonomous drone flight with no inputs from a ground controller. From launch to recovery.

A scenario to relate it to the thread issue - Thanks to GPS a drone could be launched to fly a pre-programmed race track on the final approach or departure ends of a runway waiting for a pax jet to fly near or into it. If a small explosive device (something like a hand grenade) were added to the drone and some proximity alert devices installed (cheaply available from the automotive parts world) then what we got is a poor mans (terrorist) anti-aircraft missile.....






.

[davidjpowell]

UAV's such as the Gemini are really only ever going to be in the hands of enthusiasts, whom one would hope will know better....

The more commonly attributable DJI drones, the Mavic, Phantom, and the more expensive Inspire are the one's which are more accessible to the newbie, but have impressive performance for their size.

DJI and the other manufacturers are becoming more switched on. They are using GPS to disable the UAV in certain areas. Unfortunately as with most software some backdoors exist, and I believe there is some firmware circulating that circumvents the protection. The protected areas are mostly a radius around the centre of runways, rather than following any Class of airspace.

DJI will switch off the protection for people with PfCO at specific time and locations, with prior notice and proof etc.

Whether Pilots like it or not UAV Drone's are out of the box and sharing your air.

The real issue is the lack of enforcement of the regs. Currently the CAA seem to have little interest, unless it's one of the 'big' events such as this. Other people flouting the rules will not be investigated or prosecuted. There was a video recently taken by a drone of an event in Kent. The event had well over 1,000 people and no-one with normal permissions would be able to fly over the crowd legally. The chap who filmed it had no PfCO and should not even have been in the air in that location, without the crowd. He has other video's which flouts the regs.

His video was reported to the police, who gave him a warning as he was not aware of the regs.

If he had driven a car without a license would a warning be appropriate?

The regulations are not being followed, simply because they are not being enforced.

Do I believe a Drone will bring down a plane? I'm not sure. I do believe that a collision in the present system is inevitable. Will it bring down a plane? That may be down to luck - which is not acceptable.

[RAT 5]

A/C diverting. Pax being hugely inconvenienced. Airline incurs a not inconsiderable cost. Surely this event highlights it was not an insignificant moment.

The radio reported that LGW closed the runway, (I assume airspace) for 9mins on 2 occasions. Would this really require diversions? Just how much fuel did those guys have? Surely enough to hold for a couple of circles?
I wonder what the real effort was in finding the laser culprits. Will the effort into finding these drone infringers be any greater? Where to start? Surely this will increase the call to have some registration & ID on the units. If you can 'find my phone' via GPS or whatever system it uses, then surely a drone can carry a phone sized battery/transmitter to enable it to be tracked and identified when necessary? I can not see a technological problem. It depends if there will be legislation to do so. It might even be the interest of the owner if they lose sight of it and it crashes or drifts off on the wind.

[davidjpowell]

A/C diverting. Pax being hugely inconvenienced. Airline incurs a not inconsiderable cost. Surely this event highlights it was not an insignificant moment.

The radio reported that LGW closed the runway, (I assume airspace) for 9mins on 2 occasions. Would this really require diversions? Just how much fuel did those guys have? Surely enough to hold for a couple of circles?
I wonder what the real effort was in finding the laser culprits. Will the effort into finding these drone infringers be any greater? Where to start? Surely this will increase the call to have some registration & ID on the units. If you can 'find my phone' via GPS or whatever system it uses, then surely a drone can carry a phone sized battery/transmitter to enable it to be tracked and identified when necessary? I can not see a technological problem. It depends if there will be legislation to do so. It might even be the interest of the owner if they lose sight of it and it crashes or drifts off on the wind.

There was a consultation earlier this year, due for publication later this year. I would not be surprised to see that registration becomes obligatory. But it's not going to help find the drone unless it falls to the ground....

[Daysleeper]

[QUOTE]drone unless it falls to the ground/QUOTE]

How about requiring the drone to transmit its registration at all times?

[bbrown1664]

I'm amazed that someone in telecomms at the airport hasn't thought of transmitting jamming signals on the drone frequencies within, say, 5nm of the airfield.

That would be the end of Wi-Fi for anyone living near the airport as well as anyone wanting t o use the Wi-Fi within the airport too.

[bbrown1664]

[QUOTE]drone unless it falls to the ground/QUOTE]

How about requiring the drone to transmit its registration at all times?

That's OK for expensive drones of the future that have that capability but no good for the cheap ones everyone has at the moment

[Daysleeper]

[quote=Daysleeper;9819430]

That's OK for expensive drones of the future that have that capability but no good for the cheap ones everyone has at the moment

Yeah, but I think the genie is well out of the bottle for the current generation of drones. So we change the rules for all drones sold after say 1 Jan 2018 and we just have to hope like most consumer electronics the current ones are all broken in 2-3 years.

[davidjpowell]

Very few drones have this capability. DJI have however launched the Matrice 200 which includes an ADS-B receiver...

While a transponder seems like a sensible requirement, what would ATC do with all of these extra blips appearing at low height etc.?

[Mark in CA]

As a former soldier in the U.S. Army with previous access to some of the most sophisticated and sensitive drone technology in our government’s arsenal, and as the current owner of a consumer drone business that sells tens of thousands of drones every year, I can tell you that the U.S. government should be concerned. I know how consumers are modifying them to meet their needs, and I can tell you that the problem is going to get bigger than anyone thinks, and fast.


I Could Kill You with a Consumer Drone - Defense One (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/06/i-could-kill-you-consumer-drone/139012/)

[Flightmech]

A/C diverting. Pax being hugely inconvenienced. Airline incurs a not inconsiderable cost. Surely this event highlights it was not an insignificant moment.

The radio reported that LGW closed the runway, (I assume airspace) for 9mins on 2 occasions. Would this really require diversions? Just how much fuel did those guys have? Surely enough to hold for a couple of circles?
I wonder what the real effort was in finding the laser culprits. Will the effort into finding these drone infringers be any greater? Where to start? Surely this will increase the call to have some registration & ID on the units. If you can 'find my phone' via GPS or whatever system it uses, then surely a drone can carry a phone sized battery/transmitter to enable it to be tracked and identified when necessary? I can not see a technological problem. It depends if there will be legislation to do so. It might even be the interest of the owner if they lose sight of it and it crashes or drifts off on the wind.

The NAP-LGW Easy flight diverted to STN squawking 7700 after a short hold over the south coast. Maybe due to fuel state?

[pasta]

Most (all) consumer drones would have been working hard at max power to get to that altitude (for those that can). And they will have no endurance left at all. Basically turning into an expensive falling stone.

The enterprise drones that have longer endurance cost into five figures. Lot of money to risk, not to mention CAA approvals.

That's why I'm sceptical.
Not sure I agree - a friend's son brought his "toy" drone on a ski trip earlier this year, and was quite happily flying it around at 3000m and above, taking video. From where I was watching it appeared to have plenty of power to spare, and endurance didn't seem to be an issue.

[Flying Binghi]

Whilst not all drone bomber footage is credible, LiveLeak is of the opinion this footage is...
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1498777854

Note re cuts to vid: "...edited it down so it wasn't so slow and boring..."





.

[SpringHeeledJack]

A chap I know who lives in Germany, bought a decent consumer drone online to fly with his son. Each time they took it to an open space it flew only minimally and kept shutting down (fail-safe mode) which left them both confused and frustrated. After communicating with the manufacturer, it transpired that inbuilt in it's software was an ability to know when it was being used in the vicinity of an airport to ameliorate such problems as at LGW. Unfortunately for this owner the only unpopulated areas were in the vicinity ( but not close to) an airport, so they ended up selling it and have taken up another hobby. I wonder why such a system can't be included in consumer drones as standard ?

[Alsacienne]

Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?

[davidjpowell]

How do you know what it is going to fall on?

[Animal Mother]

Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?

Possibly.

It all falls within the "Lawful Excuse" defence and would likely still need to be put before the courts/CPS.

From the Criminal Damage Act (1971):

"Section 5(2) provides that a person is to be treated as having a lawful excuse, whether or not he would be so treated apart from its provisions:

"(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction or damage to the property in question had so consented or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question ...in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed- (i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and (ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."

On the basis of s5(1), the s5(2) defence applies to ss 1(1), 2(a) and 3(a) only. Under s5(3) it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held. Section 5(5) makes it clear that these provisions operate without prejudice to any other defence available to a criminal charge."

[Ian W]

Very few drones have this capability. DJI have however launched the Matrice 200 which includes an ADS-B receiver...

While a transponder seems like a sensible requirement, what would ATC do with all of these extra blips appearing at low height etc.?

This is a major issue. ADS-B is already very congested with new 'bright ideas' for its use being added almost daily. There is a probability that it will become unusable in the not too distant future. Remember air traffic agencies are likely to be mandating ADS-B IN for aircraft CDTI so it is not just ATC that will suffer.

[JumpJumpJump]

Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?

Quite sure that if you were to destroy one with your left engine... you would be free from blame..... Just Saying

[First.officer]

Wrt consumer drones such as that manufactured by DJI, the facility at an application level certainly has the ability to record the telemetry data from flights flown, admittedly this data would only be "logged" by said manufacturer at say, a firmware update....that said, if manufacturers mandated an update of some form each month and this involved a mandatory receipt of data for flights flown, then in theory there would be a method by which proof of a flight in a certain area could then be proven. This would afford a low cost solution other than transponders etc., and although it wouldn't necessarily preclude an incident, it would perhaps make the general population think a little more on where it's safe to operate the quads/drones etc. Of course, some proof of ownership and registration would also be required at time of purchase but if levelled at the manufacturer and owner level, it would minimise regulator and enforcement agencies efforts whilst satisfying the need for some control perhaps.....

[beamender99]

Low altitude systems to disable drones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27-2WDIZR0

French Army Trains Eagles to Fight Drone Terrorism | Fortune.com (http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/drones-eagles-france/)

https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-police-prevent-the-training-of-eagles-to-catch-drones

[DaveReidUK]

Wrt consumer drones such as that manufactured by DJI, the facility at an application level certainly has the ability to record the telemetry data from flights flown, admittedly this data would only be "logged" by said manufacturer at say, a firmware update....that said, if manufacturers mandated an update of some form each month and this involved a mandatory receipt of data for flights flown, then in theory there would be a method by which proof of a flight in a certain area could then be proven. This would afford a low cost solution other than transponders etc., and although it wouldn't necessarily preclude an incident, it would perhaps make the general population think a little more on where it's safe to operate the quads/drones etc. Of course, some proof of ownership and registration would also be required at time of purchase but if levelled at the manufacturer and owner level, it would minimise regulator and enforcement agencies efforts whilst satisfying the need for some control perhaps.....

You were doing OK until the part where you described it as a "low cost solution". It sounds anything but.

[First.officer]

Well, okay - which part doesn't sound low cost - when compared to adding Tx, ADS-B etc. that others suggest? if its the telemetry data feedback that you think might be the costly part, well certainly with DJI, that already exists and is logged for every flight made - I know this only because I have two drones from aforementioned manufacturer (Mavic and Inspire 2), and both log Lat/Long, Altitude, Distance etc., etc. already (heck, even plots route flown on to Google Maps also as a plan view track breadcrumb!).

The updating requirement monthly would not be onerous upon a manufacturer, as firmware requires updating almost monthly anyway - make the drone a 'no fly' model if firmware isn't updated (can be easily done via the drone firmware) by adding a server timestamp limit/restriction or such like, and this then mandates people need to communicate with the manufacturer of said drone to enable flight.

If I'm missing the cost element here by comparison, standing by to be enlightened :ok:

[DaveReidUK]

OK, I take your point that giving the good guys the ability to prove they have only been flying where they should be probably wouldn't need much more in the way of infrastructure than currently exists.

But it's not the good guys we should be worrying about. Monitoring where the bad guys fly (bearing in mind that they may have hacked the firmware and/or geofencing, and not be reliant at all on manufacturer updates) is likely to require a whole new approach to system architecture and infrastructure.

I stand by my view that there would be a significant cost attached to that.

[First.officer]

Equally, I take your point Dave that your not really ever perhaps going to stop the bad guys with the solution I suggest....if those types are determined to hack firmware and/or geo-fencing solutions built into drone firmware and software, then I would suggest that given a level of expertise needed to do as such, then they are really hell-bent on creating chaos akin to terrorists - fair comment?.

What I'm suggesting would merely be a solution to your average 'Joe Public' that would buy a consumer drone and then think it would be fun to throw it up to get close-ups of airliners at airports. That at the moment is where I see the problem being - and its a lack of accountability I suspect that makes these types feel they can get away with what currently happens by way of reported incidents.

The day that an individual with some form of desire to cause harm with a device and their ability to remove monitoring/flight restrictions appears, then sadly another method does need to be utilised - and this already exists in the form of opposing forces using shuttlecock bombs (Iraqi soldiers v ISIS). There is significant cost here agreed, but that could be true of anything involving the mitigation against acts of - well, bluntly its terrorism.

[Ian W]

I would discount any reliance on the software in 'drones' as almost all of it is being hacked and I wouldn't be surprised to see totally jailbroken drones on the market.

So soft walls, altitude limits, range limits are all only in software and are actively being removed.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/11/dji_drones_app_sec/

[Andrewgr2]

All drones over 250g (8oz) apparently with safety tests for owners.

Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me.

UK to bring in drone registration - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40684581)

[G-CPTN]

What about existing drones and those assembled from parts?

[sxjack]

All drones over 250g (8oz) apparently with safety tests for owners.


Most of what the government say that they are going to do comes from EASA NPA 2017-05 (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/NPA%202017-05%20%28A%29_0.pdf) although you wouldn't know that from reading the government response (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/benefits-of-drones-to-the-uk-economy) to the DfT drone consultation (which is what prompted the various reports in the media yesterday).

[IcePaq]

Wondering when they will start calling RC planes "drones".

[Andrewgr2]

Perhaps that's answered early in the EU NPA where it says The Agency [EASA] proposes to regulate both model aircraft and UAS through the same rules.

I confess I have not read all of the 128 pages of the NPA but it seems an all encompassing sledge hammer - no doubt without any means of enforcement

[oxenos]

I have not read it all either, but I note that there is a reference to the good safety record of model aircraft flyers, and their culture of safety.
It has been suggested that buyers of drones will have to register ( bit like the old Poisons register ), but GCPTN refers to drones built from components.
I buy balsa wood, ply, glue, fabric, motors, batteries, radio gear etc., all from different suppliers. It would hardly be practical to keep a register of all these purchases just in case I used them to build a flying model.

[Nige321]

UAV Collision report here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628092/small-remotely-piloted-aircraft-systems-drones-mid-air-collision-study.pdf)

One of the most poorly researched and implemented set of tests I've seen in years. Badly thought out and biased.

An excellent appraisal here...
(http://clearvisionsecurity.co.uk/drone-collision-study/)
The authors are fully aware that the data is unreliable, uncalibrated and invalid by their own definition of the modelling process, yet they fail to admit this.

At present the UK government is poised to give Amazon permission to operate delivery drones at altitudes up to 400ft throughout the UK. Amazon drones will be flying autonomously and will have sense and avoid systems. However it is impossible for them, or any drone for that matter, to detect an aircraft travelling at 60 knots or 70mph and move out of its path in time to avoid a collision.

This study therefore demonstrates there is a clear and present danger to the GA community should Amazon be allowed to implement its delivery drone concept. For some reason though this rather obvious conclusion has missed BALPA, the DfT, the MAA, the CAA, and Lord Callanan. Instead once more hobbyist drone pilots are targeted, their potential threat overstated and the real threat to aviation missed entirely.

[tubby linton]

The strange thing about the website you refer to Nige 321 is that it contains no biographical information as to the qualifications of those involved. Their twitter account was also quite active in denouncing the report as well without any basis .The twitter accounts that agreed with the website twitter feed are all fake.
Having looked at your post here and the tweets I would suggest you are the same person.Balpa decided to ignore you on twitter and I suggest that Pprune users do likewise.
I struggle to see what you are trying to gain by denouncing the report and where is the bias, or are you one of these people who thinks rules relating to air vehicles shouldn't apply to you.

[Nige321]

Having looked at your post here and the tweets I would suggest you are the same person.

Hahaha... Very funny. I give you a 100% cast-iron guarantee I am not the same person. I don't even have a Twitter account...

I do have a PfCO and I do fly RC model aircraft as a hobby.

You can think what you like, I don't give a toss...

[Nige321]

Oh, and others think it's biased. BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40738948) I assume you've actually read the report?

[electrotor]

Wondering when they will start calling RC planes "drones".

I have written to the Airprox Board, CAA & DfT asking for a clear definition of "drone".

To date the Airprox Board has responded to admit they have no definition. Yet they happily use the word in their reports.
The CAA has not responded since I wrote last year.
The DfT has about 14 days left of their promised response time.

Until such a defintion exists the proposed legislation is meaningless.

[sxjack]

I have written to the Airprox Board, CAA & DfT asking for a clear definition of "drone".

Until such a defintion exists the proposed legislation is meaningless.

While EASA do use the word drone on their website and in some documents, the draft regulation in NPA 2017-05 doesn't use the word drone, it uses UAS and gives a definition.
‘unmanned aircraft (UA)’ means any aircraft operated or designed to be operated without a pilot on board, which has the capacity to operate autonomously or to be piloted remotely;
UK regulations that are based on this will presumably do the same.

The UK DfT give a definition of 'drone' in their consultation document
A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.
although they didn't always follow it.

I have also complained to the Airprox board about their use of the term. They came back saying that they default to the term drone as UAS is too technical for the general public and press.

[electrotor]

I have also complained to the Airprox board about their use of the term. They came back saying that they default to the term drone as UAS is too technical for the general public and press.

They gave me pretty much the same answer. Obviously some people couldn't be expected to cope with the highly technical nature of long words such as "Unmanned", "Aerial" & "Systems". Continuing this dumbing down I think we should start calling all road vehicles "broom brooms" and all shipping "boaties".

The Dft has pointed me to a document which was published last year and from which the definition that you give is taken, I suspect. (See page 10).

What is a drone?
1.1 A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.
1.2 Drones come in a variety of sizes – they can be as small as your hand, weighing less than 250g or as big as a small plane, weighing several tonnes. As they increase in size, they are able to travel further. Smaller drones tend to use electric motors for propulsion, whereas larger drones tend to use combustion engines like other conventional aircraft.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579562/consultation-on-the-safe-use-of-drones.pdf

So there we have it. My interpretation is all radio control, wi-fi or bluetooth controlled models, regardless of type. This will no doubt upset many model flyers who have been flying their > 250g models safely for years and who consider drones to be something other than what they fly. There will be rioting on the streets for sure.

[Nige321]

So there we have it. My interpretation is all radio control, wi-fi or bluetooth controlled models, regardless of type. This will no doubt upset many model flyers who have been flying their > 250g models safely for years and who consider drones to be something other than what they fly. There will be rioting on the streets for sure.

Not sure about the rioting but the BMFA has been looking out for the model flyers for a long time on this subject. Trying to persuade EASA and the CAA that 'traditional' R/C flyers are different from the nutter with a drone at the end of Gatwicks runway is an uphill task - they are all 'drones' as far as the lawyers are concerned. (Exactly the same argument is happening in Germany with their DMFV)

Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...:D

[biscuit74]

Not sure about the rioting but the BMFA has been looking out for the model flyers for a long time on this subject. Trying to persuade EASA and the CAA that 'traditional' R/C flyers are different from the nutter with a drone at the end of Gatwicks runway is an uphill task - they are all 'drones' as far as the lawyers are concerned. (Exactly the same argument is happening in Germany with their DMFV)

Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...:D

It was unfortunate that the original consultation on 'drones' was not well advertised or understood either amongst the radio control model fraternity or the light aviation world. I am surprised at the difficulty EASA and the CAA are having with the definition, though I suspect this is down to lawyers wanting precise statements- which they will then spend fortunes picking apart if given the chance!

To me 'Line of Sight' is the obvious criterion; if outside that it's a 'drone'. Inside it can be a radio control model. The slope soaring r/c folk have the greatest problem there - LoS can be a fair distance.

While drones around large airports are an obvious danger, I'm also concerned about any spread of drone use generally at low level. While we ought to be able to define the main commercial use low level areas adequately, I doubt that the many light aircraft and microlight strips around the country will be well enough surveyed to ensure drones stay clear of active circuits. Will they have adequate avoidance mechanisms? I doubt it.

I think another snag here is that the CAA no longer have enough people left to carry out all the tasks they are assigned, especially practically experienced and knowledgeable ones.

[Buster11]

What is unfortunate is that out of 35,000 BMFA members plus quite a few thousand other model flyers who don't bother to support the sport's national body, only 241 bothered to respond with comments on the consultation document. Numbers do count and this apathy has doubtless given the DfT the impression that model flyers aren't bothered what happens.

[sxjack]

I'm also concerned about any spread of drone use generally at low level.

EU governments want more commercial drone use. That is the main driver behind NPA 2017-05 and the coming unmanned traffic management system / U-Space.

See the Riga declaration, the Warsaw declaration and SESAR drone outlook study.

[biscuit74]

EU governments want more commercial drone use. That is the main driver behind NPA 2017-05 and the coming unmanned traffic management system / U-Space.

See the Riga declaration, the Warsaw declaration and SESAR drone outlook study.

Steve

I know. Worrying, given the level of ignorance our politicians show about aviation. (Well, about just about anything in any sense technical! )

Buster11 - I agree. I felt it wasn't well advertised either in the model world or the light aviation world in the UK.

[electrotor]

What is unfortunate is that out of 35,000 BMFA members plus quite a few thousand other model flyers who don't bother to support the sport's national body, only 241 bothered to respond with comments on the consultation document. Numbers do count and this apathy has doubtless given the DfT the impression that model flyers aren't bothered what happens.

Did you actually try to plough your way through the consultation document? As someone used to the complexities of aviation regulation I found it a pain. Also it seemed more biased towards commercial operations NOT model flying.Those 241 were brave souls.

[electrotor]

Not sure about the rioting but the BMFA has been looking out for the model flyers for a long time on this subject. Trying to persuade EASA and the CAA that 'traditional' R/C flyers are different from the nutter with a drone at the end of Gatwicks runway is an uphill task - they are all 'drones' as far as the lawyers are concerned. (Exactly the same argument is happening in Germany with their DMFV)

Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...:D

There are several model flying organisations, representing the interests of their members, which are recognised by and meet with the CAA who have evolved CAP 658 over the years to be the guidance material for the relevant articles within the ANO. Model flying in the UK is well regulated and generally adhered to by responsible flyers. There will always be nutters however.

[Buster11]

Electrotor, I agree the consultation document was certainly pretty dense and obviously biassed heavily towards commercial operations, but that was surely the very reason model flyers did need to comment. I think BMFA News referred to the paragraphs relevant to model flying well ahead of the response deadline. Trouble is, a lot of BMFA members say there's nothing in the magazine of interest to them and just bin it. Blinkered or what? I certainly didn't read every word and just focussed on the sections that affected 'orthodox' model flying before responding.

[rotornut]

US military can now shoot down drones:

US military to shoot down consumer drones - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40860806)

[Ian W]

A UK NATS video of the impact a drone had on Gatwick traffic in July;

https://vimeo.com/228662010

Just work out the cost of this one incident

[sprite1]

I'd question that NATS video and the aircraft tracks depicted. They look generic, to be honest.

Also, a timely incident for the CAA on home turf around the same time as they release their report on drone collisions. Are they going to do this (stop all movements) every time there's a sighting in future? I doubt it.

Yes, shame on the fool for flying their drone so close to Gatwick. They should be punished accordingly. But making such a hoohah about it to reinforce your argument that you want more restrictions on Phantoms and Mavics, I would argue, actually weakens your case.

[DaveReidUK]

I'd question that NATS video and the aircraft tracks depicted. They look generic, to be honest.

I doubt it.

Using actual recorded tracks from the day in question is probably a whole lot easier than fabricating lots of fictitious ones.

[Ian W]

It is simple to create the video when you have already built visualization software to create videos from routinely captured recorded data.

[wilyflier]

About 20 years ago a "responsively flown" small model aircraft flew into a hanglider at
Devils Dyke Brighton uk
Th Hanglider pilot was killed.
The Police and CAA decided to take no action against the model flier.

I dont fly hangliders now, but I do fly Microlights.
I dont suppose Military "drones" will be stopped, but I would sure as hell like all other such devices to be shut down

[sprite1]

Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?

If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.

Life is full of risks. A woman was killed in London by being knocked down by a cyclist with no front brakes. He was cleared recently. There's no talk of banning bikes nor banning bikes cycled by irresponsible cyclists etc and yet cyclists and pedestrians mingle many more times per day than a drone is flown up into the air.

Have you read the CAA commissioned report into Drone collisions? It's linked above. Talk about starting with your answer and working out how to get there. Vested interests are trying to shut this hobby down for, well, their own vested interests.

It's no coincidence that the US military have stated they've ordered their members to not use DJI products. Also, they will shoot down any drones they see flying close to their installations (apparently, from cyber fears that the Chinese could then hack what the pilot recorded)

This clampdown is not about safety and a Phantom hitting a 320 at 140kts.

[Infieldg]

Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?

Sounds like it.

THRILL SEEKERS DICING WITH DEATH AT THE DYKE (From The Argus) (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/5169367.THRILL_SEEKERS_DICING_WITH_DEATH_AT_THE_DYKE/?ref=arc)

Less than a year after June 1986 ;

"...fatal accident less than a year later, when he collided with a radio-controlled model aeroplane. Within weeks, the Southern Hang-gliding Club voted to create a special "exclusion zone" to keep hang-gliders away from model plane fliers. Members agreed not to fly below 250ft in the North Bowl area of the Dyke - a rule which has been adhered to ever since."

[sprite1]

Wow, interesting.

There you go.

I'm not having a go at anyone. It just annoys me when 'regulatory bodies' come out with their catch-all 'it's for safety' :mad: and people just accept it.

I'll say this again. It is not to protect John and Patricia Smith coming back from their holidays. That's simply a by-product of the legislation they're trying to bring in.

[Buster11]

On a point of accuracy, shortly after the Devil's Dyke accident, the British Model Flying Association, in conjunction with the BHPA, issued a Code of Practice for the shared use of sites by model aircraft and hang gliders/paragliders, which has enabled safe use of sites by both sports since then.

[zonoma]

Why would NATS release a "generic" video to make a point when they have the real life disruption on tap? That is almost like blaming a cancellation on a fictitious ATC strike.....

[nevillestyke]

On a point of accuracy, shortly after the Devil's Dyke accident, the British Model Flying Association, in conjunction with the BHPA, issued a Code of Practice for the shared use of sites by model aircraft and hang gliders/paragliders, which has enabled safe use of sites by both sports since then.
There have been collisions between paragliders and model gliders, since Ron Steadman's fatal accident, but no more fatalities, AFAIK. The white demarcation posts between the modellers' bowl and the hangliding area, at Devil's Dyke, have long since rotted away and have not been replaced.

[nevillestyke]

Come on Wilyflier, more details would be appreciated if you're going to use that one incident from 20 years ago. What height? Designated and well known hang gliding area? Perhaps the hang glider flew over a known model aircraft strip and clubhouse that he should've read up on before taking flight?

If this all happened 20yrs ago with a responsible model aircraft flyer, I'd say short of just not flying his model that day, there was nothing else he could have done to prevent a collision with a hang glider.



The collision occurred at 80' above the hill (too low for a reserve deployment). The models and the hangliders used the same soarable ridge. Generally the hangliders were at the west side and the models at the east side. The model flyers would keep line-of-sight separation with the hangliders to make sure of no conflict but the model flyer failed to do so, in this instance, and mis-judged the range separation of the two. The model was fairly heavy, fast and had the wings mounted on steel pins, projecting from the fuselage. The hanglider side-wire slid between the model wing and fuselage, and was cut by the steel mounting pin of the model.

[Manfred Von Holstein]

Clearly the issue of drones is complicated, and no single "solution" is going to solve potential conflicts. If I don't miss my guess, the solutions to the great majority of these issues will come about through pressure on manufacturers to install technical limits, be it "geo-fencing", soft-failure when comms are lost etc, combined with a licensing system for the larger drones.

A measure I'd like to see is manufacturers being compelled to "life" the software that controls them, that way periodic and unavoidable software updates could be used either to introduce new limits on their flight-envelope, or indeed could render a drone permamently grounded if it enters controlled airspace, for example.

Some back-and-forth telemetry would be helpful here so that a misused drone would effectively report itself for entering controlled airspace, identify the licensed owner and ground itself until the issue was resolved.

Currently, as far as drones are concerned, we're in a situation akin to that of commercial aviation in the 1920's and 30's, where technical advances were creating new problems at a faster rate than the legislators could deal with. Aircraft aviation survived and thrived despite this, and in turn we'll lean to live with drones as the legislation matures to contend with the them.

There is, no doubt a certain attrition-rate of drones in private/clueless hands, and so it's reasonable to suppose that within a short number of years the great majority of the currently umlimited drones will no longer be flyable.

The trick is going to be legislating without clobbering other spheres of UAV's- eg RC model flying, (which has an excellent safety record) as "collateral damage" in dealing with the muppets flying drones close to commercial traffic....

[davidjpowell]

The most popular drones already have the telementary. All the systems have to do is report it...

[Ian W]

It all depends who you want to stop. The 'drone' user with more money than sense whose sole exposure to news is MTV buys a drone then plays with it with no comprehension of any legal limitations or requirements. OR The drone user who is technically capable and malicious. The first is easy in multiple ways such as those you propose. The malicious technically capable user will not be prevented as they will immediately work around any attempts at jamming or geofencing. Imagine a rooted smart phone being used for communications, navigation and video feed.
A lot more realistic thought needs to be given to how to deal with these issues.

[Manfred Von Holstein]

I would think that the "greatest good for the greatest number" applies here. The simple fact is that no legislation or technical approach is going to forestall all possible malicious use of light-aircraft/gliders/drones/rc models.


However, if we can exclude the ignorant/clueless from operating drones in conflict with commercial traffic, a great deal of progress will have been made. So keeping drones away from airfields and out of controlled airspace should be the immediate priority; and the previously mentioned measures would take of, in time, the great majority of such "mischievious" (albeit hideously irresponsible) near-misses.


As far as the "malicious technically capable user" goes, once the issue has been reduced to contending with these individuals only, it's more easily dealt with by bringing standard Police methods one the craft is brought down. If modifying a drone to permit it to be flown in controlled airspace were then a specific offence, then these - relatively rare individuals - can be dealt with as a manageable problem.


We need to bear in mind though, that whilst distracting and potentially dangerous, they're rather less dangerous, statisically, than light-aircraft blundering into controlled airspace. I once had the bejezus scared out of me by of all things a helium-filled greyish party-balloon, which flashed past within inchess of my Pa28 before my brain could process what it was. Silly now, but at the time it frightened me fartless.

In short, measures to ameliorate the "drone problem" will come, but it's merely one of a number of distracting/dangerous unexpected things we can collide with, from birds, balloons, drones, light aircraft upwards; so it's probably worth keeping a sense of proportion about them.


What I fond more interesting, in the light of Solly Sullenberger's ditching, is how ETOP's has skewed the percieved risks of such collisions. When 4 engines was the norm, the loss of a single engine was not overtly serious, but now, as no-one apparantly foresaw that Geese might fly in formations sufficient to stop two engines, the airline industry has become rather more alert about anything that can be ingested and which might suddenly make 50% - or more - of their engines nauseous or worse. Hence the current 'attack of the vapours' over drones, I suspect.

[nitro rig driver]

And thats just the wing tip !


https://www.facebook.com/peixotoimoveis/posts/10155346759580783

[Airclues]

It's a fake

http://www.snopes.com/drone-strike-video/ (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fdrone-strike-video%2F&h=ATN1HEfzmOfVq0OgQh27o0MkSOGtDWrd4NtlH6I-C5EHJppWjKdFSfKhYpfdhtdeCTBzq6YdRCHDcjCSUVo2_0T5aH48ijJoLio3 9mHIhKKfvT6vWIUohzjJxXGGBFEVccxgP98zhxqWdMhnLt6r4idYfIetSA)

[helimutt]

And thats just the wing tip !


https://www.facebook.com/peixotoimoveis/posts/10155346759580783

Been done to death that one. Totally fake. Amazes me how all of this regulation and certification is required by the CAA but they can't police it at all. I even offered to be involved in the CAA Drone dept. No salary, just expenses, investigating drone incidents. As a responsible drone user and PfCO holder I am constantly astounded by the stupidity of those drone users who post their videos on YouTube, yet nothing is done. Ok, every once in a while a police force 'may' do something about it, but it's ridiculous to even think you'd be caught and prosecuted for flying a drone dangerously. The police would rather have their little fat traffic cops hiding in bushes in a village trying to catch someone doing 33mph. That gives them some income. Total joke. Any software on a drone can be bypassed, believe me. If someone wants to use a drone maliciously, they will. If ignorance is the cause of incidents then education is the key. The more DJI limit the software in their products, the more other companies will start to sell less limited drones. just my 2c worth.

[Alpine Flyer]

CGN approach slowing down traffic, starting holdings and then switching runway after departing traffic reports drone over OM RWY 14L.

[DIBO]

As the threat surely isn't limited to the "commercial a/c" aspect of this topic's title: a serious drone midair with a Black Hawk:
Sept2017 pics: drone hits Blackhawk helicopter over New York, debris embedded in fuselage (http://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=62221#p356076)

[b1lanc]

Reported damage to two of the main rotor blades and oil cooler after hitting the side of the Black Hawk with a piece of the drone recovered after landing.

[Pilot DAR]

Drone strike report:

Plane sustained minor damage after hitting drone near Quebec City: Garneau - Montreal - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/garneau-airport-drone-quebec-1.4355792)

[b1lanc]

https://www.aeroinside.com/item/10530/argentinas-b738-at-buenos-aires-on-nov-11th-2017-drone-strike

Argentinas 738. Pic on Simon's site but hard to determine impact point.

[e1229]

Due to a drone presence, CGH airport was closed for 2 hours:

Drone causa cancelamento de voos em Congonhas por duas horas - São Paulo - Estadão (http://sao-paulo.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,drone-causa-cancelamento-de-voos-em-congonhas-por-duas-horas,70002082218) [in portuguese]

Preliminary investigations couldn't find the responsible.

[aox]

Hints of proposed legislation in the UK

Drone users in the UK will be required to do safety awareness tests as part of planned new legislation on their usage.

Police will also be given new powers to crack down on illegal use of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

UK drone users to sit safety tests under new law - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42126150)

[aterpster]

Communities all over the U.S. are passing local drone laws. They are all illegal. Only the FAA has jurisdiction over UAVs. In fact, the FAA's regulatory powers were diminished in September in a law suit brought by an attorney in Massachusetts. A federal judge ruled that noncommercial UAVs below the threshold weight need not be registered with the FAA, nor can the FAA charge a fee. The operational rules stand, though: noncommercial UAVs cannot be operated above 400 feet, agl, and not within 5 miles of an airport unless the airport authority gives permission.

In my local community in California the city counsel has passed a more restrictive code, which is unenforceable. One of the city's restrictions is a UAV cannot be operated within 500 feet horizontally of city-designated public buildings. I recently asked for the list of these buildings and am being stonewalled. Probably because the city manager failed to make any such designations.

My wife was shopping at the local WalMart yesterday. She said there were boxes and boxes of the "GPS Shadow Drone" on sale for $99.60. The new year should be interesting around here. We don't have enough local law enforcement to enforce the traffic laws, much less chase down errant drones.

[Geriaviator]

We don't have enough local law enforcement to enforce the traffic laws, much less chase down errant drones.

Says it all really. We have laws new and old to cover almost everything, yet they are useless if not enforced.

[sxjack]

Hints of proposed legislation in the UK

A little bit more than hints. Here is the news story on the UK government website that is behind the BBC article -

www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-police-to-address-illegal-and-unsafe-use-of-drones

Most of the stuff the government are saying was in their response to their drone consultation back in July.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631638/unlocking-the-uks-high-tech-economy-consultation-on-the-safe-use-of-drones-in-the-uk-government-response.pdf

The one thing that I haven't seen before is this -


The Flying High Challenge, funded by the government and run by Nesta in partnership with Innovate UK, is set to launch tomorrow (Monday, 27 November) when cities will be invited to register their interest.

Up to 5 cities will be supported in the research and development of drone technology which could transform critical services in – for example, emergency health services and organ transport, essential infrastructure assessment and repair, and parcel delivery and logistics.

[DaveReidUK]

A little bit more than hints. Here is the news story on the UK government website that is behind the BBC article

"New measures will also make it mandatory for drone owners to register to improve accountability."

Good luck with that.

An expression involving genies and bottles springs to mind ...

[davidjpowell]

I think registration is only going to be mandatory for new purchases. Makes sense as they can enforce it through the machine setup/registration process. Mind you I think they could enforce on most existing machines the same way.

[Ian W]

'They' will not be able to retrospectively enforce these regulations. They also do not apply to 'model aircraft' clubs. Anyone with a malevolent intent can easily build their own remote controlled aircraft (RPAS) and of course if they do that there is no reason to use the standard communications and control channels, a simple cellular network number is all that is required. So all the jamming of standard frequencies will not work.
Why is it that bureaucrats think that passing a law against something will stop people with malevolent intent? :ugh:

[16024]

Having looked through the new proposals published by Gov.UK, I am still at a loss regarding the definition of a "Drone" vs a model aeroplane or helicopter.
I can see where they are trying to go with this, and appreciate that the 250g lower limit will rule out the gadget shop toys.
Can anyone see where it is defined?
A 5kg helicopter flown badly (or flown well, in a bad place) is probably going to end up messily but harmlessly re-kitted.
But a 5kg moulded sailplane that "gets away", would be a different matter if it gets in the way of GA or airline traffic.
Note here, I am not in any way suggesting we regulate RC model flyers beyond the existing codes of practise.

[sxjack]

EASA and the CAA use 'drone' as a synonym for unmanned aircraft. The coming changes will affect model aircraft. See EASA NPA 2017-05 2.3.1.5 (page 9).

If you fly a unmanned aircraft over 250g, you will be required to register. See table 2 on page 15 of the NPA.

There are hooks in the NPA that the DfT/CAA can hang exemptions for the model aircraft associations on, see article 14.

[rcsa]

Why is it that bureaucrats think that passing a law against something will stop people with malevolent intent? :ugh:

'The bureaucrats' don't think regulation and legislation will stop people with malevolent intent. Legislation will, however, make it harder to implement that intent; will reduce (over time) the availability of the hardware to those with ill-intent; and will provide law enforcement and the judiciary with a robust legal framework to prosecute those who abuse the technology.

In other words, the same sensible legal framework that demands responsible ownership and use of any other potentially dangerous technology - like guns, cars and aircraft.

I'm sure that, behind the bluster, you understand the underlying principle that the more potential your behavior has to harm others, the more responsibility you have to behave intelligently.

Legislation takes time to catch up with technology and to fully understand the risk. When hobby UAVs were seen as 'just fun toys' there was no need for legislative control. Ten years on, the law needs to reflect widespread public fears that a hobby UAV could bring down an airliner. If these fears are unfounded, the law will never be used, and in time will drop off the statute book.

[16024]

sxjack: thanks for the useful reference.
I can see a few test cases coming up...

[aox]

A little bit more than hints. Here is the news story on the UK government website that is behind the BBC article -



I dont think the word hints was unfair. So far it's a wish or intention, not actual legislation

The current government proposed other laws or actions it has since dropped or not realised, and who knows whether the same government will be there in a few months time?

Off-topic: Boris Johnson said a year ago he wants to support Turkey's candidacy to join the EU, but looks unlikely to ever have the chance.

The draft Drone Bill, which will be published next spring, will give officers the right to ..

Pedantry corner: not quite, the draft bill is a proposal, for consultation, and the powers arise when legislation is actually passed, either the same as originally drafted or subsequently amended.

[DaveReidUK]

Drones update, 27 November 2017 (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/drones-update-27-november-2017)

[Ian W]

'The bureaucrats' don't think regulation and legislation will stop people with malevolent intent. Legislation will, however, make it harder to implement that intent; will reduce (over time) the availability of the hardware to those with ill-intent; and will provide law enforcement and the judiciary with a robust legal framework to prosecute those who abuse the technology.

In other words, the same sensible legal framework that demands responsible ownership and use of any other potentially dangerous technology - like guns, cars and aircraft.

I'm sure that, behind the bluster, you understand the underlying principle that the more potential your behavior has to harm others, the more responsibility you have to behave intelligently.

Legislation takes time to catch up with technology and to fully understand the risk. When hobby UAVs were seen as 'just fun toys' there was no need for legislative control. Ten years on, the law needs to reflect widespread public fears that a hobby UAV could bring down an airliner. If these fears are unfounded, the law will never be used, and in time will drop off the statute book.

If _you_ wanted to be malevolent with a UAS it may increase the work factor to have legislation changing the software and hardware of the sold UAS. The same for the bureaucrats and politicians who are daily amazed by the cellular telephones. However, for the average hobbyist in both model aircraft and software using different frequencies and streamed video to control their UAS is as simple as rooting their iPhones. Let the security services jam WiFi and GPS around an airport and guess who is going to have problems.

While I understand the intent - the cures being proposed need to be altogether better thought out by experts in all the areas affected or the cures could be worse than the disease.

[ShotOne]

In UK there is an increasingly well-enforced licensing process for professional drone use. Unfortunately exactly the people who, after spending £1500 -£15000 on professional equipment are the least likely users to be buzzing neighbours or airports.

[Mahonda]

My Local Authority applies the following under a PSPO:

"The anti-social activities which currently take place in the Borough's Parks and OpenSpaces are litter, dog fouling, consumption of alcohol, large groups causing intimidation and using facilities out of hours, the use of motorbikes, smoking illegal substances, feeding pigeons and the use of radio controlled cars and aircraft. Although this is not an exhaustive list, it provides examples of the types of anti-social activities which a PSPO would seek to
control".
Under this order, a £50 fine can be applied. If it is applied, which is clearly not, as I have seen and heard flying R/C models in the air within sight of Northolt airfield

[PDR1]

I think registration is only going to be mandatory for new purchases. Makes sense as they can enforce it through the machine setup/registration process.


What "setup/regsitration process"? You take these things out of the box, charge the batteries and fly. There is no mandatory "registration process" and no essential communication with external systems.

Yes, you could introduce a law saying that before flying they must be connected to the internet and registered, but given that almost all of these are manufactured in china, korea, taiwan etc I can't see that they would have much interest in complying. The vast majority of these things are purchased over the internet, usually from suppliers in china, korea, taiwan etc. If they choose to ignore such a law it would be extremely expensive to put sufficient import surveillance staff in place to prevent the shipments coming into this country.

Mind you I think they could enforce on most existing machines the same way.

How, exactly?

You might want to do a bit of research into what these things actually look like before making sweeping assertions like this!

PDR

[barryt]

Hi folks,

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I can't seem to find an appropriate place otherwise on this forum - mods please fix if necessary - apologies in advance.

My "problem":

Hoping somebody can give me a name or contact person at the UK CAA who is responsible for drones and UAVs.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

[fulham fan]

Hi - depends which subject you want to talk about - if its policy / regs etc then try [email protected] if its comms / education etc

[ShotOne]

Good intentions and step in right direction but yet again it's legislation piled on the already law-abiding. Professional operators are very unlikely to be yahooing around airports with thousands of £'s worth of pro equipment

[DaveReidUK]

The UKAB's latest report contains details of an October 2017 incident where a (BA) crew reported a drone passing 5 feet(!) overhead the F/O's window while on final approach to LHR over Kew.

Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 6th December 2017 (https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2017/New_assessed_reports/Airprox%20Report%202017254.pdf)

[andycba]

So this happened al Las Vegas:

https://mashable.com/2018/02/02/drone-airplane-video-faa/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link#0yh.GxT1Faqh

[DaveReidUK]

Looks fake to me.

[Carbon Bootprint]

That was my first impression as well -- looks very CGI-like. Not that I would expect the Frontier crew to see a drone if one was in fact there, but does anyone know if they did report it? Or is the video the only thing the FAA is working with?

[ZeroFuelMass]

looks like it was done using P3D...LOL

[Kulverstukas]

OlQsYPGtjTE

The drone took off from Whitney Park and unclear when the incident happened.

"We became aware of this incident this afternoon and we are investigating," said Ian Gregor from the FAA.

In the video, the drone flies above Whitney Park for a few seconds. Then, an airplane flies towards it. When the drone turns around, the airplane is seen directly below it.

According to the FAA, a drone pilot who flies unsafely could face fines from of up to $1,437 per violation, while businesses that fly unsafely can face fines of up to $32,666 per violation.

On top of that, people who fly drones unsafely can face federal criminal penalties including fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years.

Drone organizations have already condemned the incident.

"This pilot's actions not only endangered the flying public but has the potential to discredit an entire sUAS industry," Drone U said. "It is the opinion of Drone U and its members that the pilot receive swift and just punishment for this example of irresponsible and reckless flight. There is no excuse for this type of criminal behavior."

ONLY ON 8: Drone flies within feet of arriving aircraft at (http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/only-on-8-drone-flies-within-feet-of-arriving-aircraft-at-mccarran/949131909)

[DaveReidUK]

In the video, the drone flies above Whitney Park for a few seconds. Then, an airplane flies towards it.

Quite so. It's all just a little TOO convenient to be real.

[ShotOne]

“These actions damage the entire UAS industry..”It’s unfortunate the regulations focus on industry I.e. commercial drones when it’s extremely unlikely a professional operator with a business and £5k or more of equipment at stake would be this silly.

[Alanwsg]

From 'The Register' ....

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/16/helicopter_crash_drone/

[Airbubba]

Here's the local news report cited in the Register article:

Charleston helicopter crash blamed on drone; FAA investigating

Thursday, February 15th 2018, 8:04 pm EST
By Patrick Phillips, Digital Content Manager


DANIEL ISLAND, SC (WCSC) -

Federal authorities are investigating a helicopter crash that happened Wednesday near the southern tip of Daniel Island.

A Robinson R22 helicopter struck a tree and crash-landed Wednesday afternoon, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokesperson Kathleen Bergen.

Charleston Police met with the two passengers of the crash later that afternoon, according to an incident report.

The instructor told police he is a private helicopter instructor and was giving a lesson to a student pilot at approximately 3:30 p.m. While the student was practicing "low impact and hover taxi maneuvers" above undeveloped land on Daniel Island, they turned and saw a white "DJI Phantom quad-copter" drone headed into their airspace, the report states.

Police say the instructor took controls of the helicopter to avoid the drone and while attempting to land, the helicopter's tail rudder struck a small tree, causing him to lose control of the helicopter.

The instructor was able to land the helicopter on its rear landing skids but it turned over on its side, the report states.

The instructor notified the owner of the helicopter and FAA investigators.

The student told police they were about 50 feet above the tree line when the drone entered their fly space. She said when the helicopter struck the tree, several pieces of the helicopter hit surrounding brush causing the helicopter to turn on its side when it landed.

The FAA is investigating the incident.

Charleston helicopter crash blamed on drone; FAA investigating - Live5News.com | Charleston, SC | News, Weather, Sports (http://www.live5news.com/story/37518601/charleston-helicopter-crash-blamed-on-drone-faa-investigating)

[rfc143]

The FAA is investigating

How does one follow up on the outcome of the investigation of incidents like this? Can you subscribe to FAA or NTSB reports?

[Fortissimo]

At the risk of exposing myself to some of PPrune's usual argumentum ad hominem, the headline of the Charleston article might more properly be phrased as "Helicopter pilot blames drone for helicopter crash" if the events are accurately reported.

Before we condemn either party in this accident, it would be interesting to know which of them was there first, whether it was 'see and avoid' airspace, what the Airprox geometry was (rules of the air), if the drone operator saw the R22 (FPV or direct vision), and why the instructor chose to land on a small tree instead of moving away.

It is entirely possible that both R22 and drone pilots were entitled to be operating in the same location and that, on this occasion the big sky theory let them down.

BTW, I am not a drone operator!

[2016parks]

Considering the topic is now drone photos of aircraft, here’s a fellow who leans out of the open window of his Cessna to take incredible overhead photos. This one is of a stealth bomber over the Rose Bowl.

“The first thought that comes to mind staring at the photograph above is: This has got to be fake. The B-2 stealth bomber looks practically pasted onto the field. The flag is unfurled just so. The angle feels almost impossible, shot directly down from above.

And yet, it’s real, the product of lots of planning, some tricky flying, and the luck of the moment. The photographer, Mark Holtzman, has been flying his Cessna 206 around taking aerial images for years, since before the digital-photography days, and he’s developed his technique for just this sort of shot."

“The plane is my tripod, and it is a moving tripod,” he told me. In fact, the way he took this photograph was literally half-hanging out the window of his plane, his Canon 5D Mark III fitted with a 70–200 mm lens, working the rudder pedals on his craft to put himself in position to fly right over the bomber, as it approached at 200 miles per hour from the opposite direction.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/how-to-take-a-picture-of-the-stealth-bomber-over-the-rose-bowl/549545/

[sxjack]

How does one follow up on the outcome of the investigation of incidents like this?

Google "NTSB GAA18CA131" every now and again.

[PDR1]

Quite so. It's all just a little TOO convenient to be real.

Never mind the convenience - that airliner is flying way too slowly to be real. You can see how close it is, and yet the angle-rate implies it's doing about 30mph...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Fortissimo

The general concept under pinning all regulatory regimes is that drones have no rights in visual flight conditions. That is they are always required to give way to any manned aircraft under all circumstances. If there is a mid air collision then it is automatically the fault of the drone operator.

Furthermore except for some specific circumstances with specially approved operators, and this will never apply to recreational operators, the drone operator must always maintain maintain sight of the drone. This must be sight with unaided eyesight, not binoculars, first person viewers etc etc.

[sxjack]

That is they are always required to give way to any manned aircraft under all circumstances.

This comment by the UK CAA on EASA's NPA 2017-05 may be of interest -

"We agree that the remote pilot must be made clearly responsible for the safe separation from any other airspace user(s), however we do not think that an explicit statement regarding ‘giving way’ is appropriate or required. While an ‘always give way’ requirement sounds fine as a basic statement, it is not necessarily practicable, or even desirable when considered more closely. We should not give other aviators the impression that they always have right of way - this will only confuse pilots of manned aircraft at best, or promote inaction at worst, especially for encounters with the larger drones - while this limitation is aimed at the ’open’ category, it will undoubtedly become a de-facto impression that all drones, irrespective of their size, will always give way. In the UK, we have already had instances where pilots have flown towards drones they've seen and had Airprox with because they think they have right of way over the drone - manned aircraft must be ready to give way and, of course, avoid, too. We fully agree that the default option for drone operators in the ’open’ category should be avoidance, and it is likely that, in almost all cases, it will be the drone operator who sees the confliction before the pilot of the manned aircraft, but this is the reason for maintaining and closely defining the VLOS requirement."

[PDR1]

This helicopter was operating at very low level. We don't know whether the multicopter in question was being flown LoS or FPV - if it was indeed being flown LoS then the helicopter had started low-level flight without an adequate check that the area was clear of veessels, vehicles, structures or people. That's an PIC's obligation and serious offence in most jurisdictions.

There was no collision, so the erroneous* claim that a collision would automatically be the drone operators fault doesn't apply. The actual collision was with a tree which failed to "give way to any manned aircraft". Presumably you'd now expect the tree to have been arrested and placed in front of a grand jury?

The instructor was reportedly conducting low-level hover taxiing training. But he had chosen an area which, when he had needed to perform an evasive manoeuvre, put him in conflict with a tree. That suggests that either his choice of suitable training area was seriously flawed, or his situational awareness was lacking. After all, SC has many large native birds, and he could just as easily have needed to manoeuvre to avoid a bird as a multicopter.

So I wouldn't be as quick to apportion blame here...


* There would be a presumption, but there are plenty of circumstances in which blame for a collision would lie with the helicopter pilot

[Jetex_Jim]

It's worth keeping in mind that drones such as the DJI Phantom can also be flown on Waypoint mode. This means that the drone can be both out of LOS (line of sight) and beyond FPV (First Person View) video range. The operator can set up a chain of waypoints, upload them to the aircraft and send it flying. The ground based equipment can be turned off while the drone does its thing autonomously.

Such a drone could enter the airspace that the helicopter was practicing in after the helicopter pilot had done his checks and started his manouvering.

[Capn Bloggs]

We should not give other aviators the impression that they always have right of way - this will only confuse pilots of manned aircraft at best, or promote inaction at worst, especially for encounters with the larger drones - while this limitation is aimed at the ’open’ category, it will undoubtedly become a de-facto impression that all drones, irrespective of their size, will always give way. In the UK, we have already had instances where pilots have flown towards drones they've seen and had Airprox with because they think they have right of way over the drone - manned aircraft must be ready to give way and, of course, avoid, too.
Ridiculous.

if it was indeed being flown LoS then the helicopter had started low-level flight without an adequate check that the area was clear of veessels, vehicles, structures or people. That's an PIC's obligation and serious offence in most jurisdictions.
Ridiculous. Spotting another aeroplane to see and avoid is one thing. This is another.

Tantamount to saying yachts have to now give way to jet skis.

The regulators should grow some balls and make drone operators keep out of the way regardless, unless they are under ATC control or the operator has radio contact with the aircraft. See and Avoid relies, to a large extent, on the fact that pilots of both aircraft will do so. Drones can't do that, so keep them away!

[airpolice]

The actual collision was with a tree which failed to "give way to any manned aircraft". Presumably you'd now expect the tree to have been arrested and placed in front of a grand jury?

* There would be a presumption, but there are plenty of circumstances in which blame for a collision would lie with the helicopter pilot

I know it's not going to help the debate a great deal, but in order to stick to the facts, there can't be a collision with a tree, unless the tree is moving.

The co in collide refers to two moving objects coming together. Your car can collide with a car coming towards your car, or your car can hit a tree.

A collision can't involve one moving and one static object. That's just not what the word means.

[airpolice]

The regulators should grow some balls and make drone operators keep out of the way regardless, unless they are under ATC control or the operator has radio contact with the aircraft. See and Avoid relies, to a large extent, on the fact that pilots of both aircraft will do so. Drones can't do that, so keep them away!

At what size/mass limit do you suggest that "drones"become subject to regulation?

A cigarette packet sized $25 device, could destroy a turbine engine if it was ingested.

Are you suggesting that the government should now regulate all model aircraft?

[Capn Bloggs]

At what size/mass limit do you suggest that "drones"become subject to regulation?

Answered your own question...

A cigarette packet sized $25 device, could destroy a turbine engine if it was ingested.

Are you suggesting that the government should now regulate all model aircraft?
They ARE regulated: "keep away from airports". And they do. And of course the pilot of a model aeroplane is probably far more alert to the threat (and the rules for operation) to real aircraft than 90% of the riff-raff steering their drones through the sky.

In any case, my gripe wasn't so much with the regulation but the preposterous suggestions that aeroplanes should keep out of the way of drones that the (aeroplane) pilots see.

Another example of a disruptive technology where the rule-makers are too weak to come down hard immediately and nip the threats in the bud.

[sxjack]

There is now a preliminary report on the R22 incident on the NTSB website -

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20180214X61821&key=1

[DaveReidUK]

I know it's not going to help the debate a great deal, but in order to stick to the facts, there can't be a collision with a tree, unless the tree is moving.

The co in collide refers to two moving objects coming together. Your car can collide with a car coming towards your car, or your car can hit a tree.

A collision can't involve one moving and one static object. That's just not what the word means.

Not so.

While that may be the usual everyday meaning of collision, aviation Occurrence Categories (as defined in ICAO ADREP, ECCAIRS, etc) include several example instances of a collision between an aircraft and a static object.

For example CTOL (Collision with obstacle during takeoff/landing), GCOL (ground collision with an aircraft, person, ground vehicle, obstacle, building, structure, etc).

[462]

I have not posted before, but considered the following is very important and relevant:


Flights have been delayed and one was forced to divert away from Auckland Airport because a drone was spotted on the approach today 6 March 2018.

Following quote from the New Zealand Herald:

Air New Zealand flight NZ92 from Haneda, Tokyo to Auckland was diverted 500km away to Ohakea Air Force base near Palmerston North.
"Because drone sightings result in aircraft operations being suspended for a minimum of 30 minutes, the pilots of NZ92 needed to divert and refuel before returning to Auckland," an Air NZ spokesperson said.

Following the report of a drone sighting, about 20 planes circled Auckland Airport until they were given the all-clear to land.

A Police spokesman said police received a report of a drone in the Whitford area that was in airspace near the approach of an incoming aircraft that was making its way to Auckland Airport, around midday today.
"The Eagle helicopter was called to the area however the drone in question wasn't located and currently there are no lines of inquiry at this time," he said.
An Airways New Zealand statement said the pilot of a Q300 aircraft alerted air traffic control to the presence of a drone in controlled airspace.
"In accordance with standard procedures air traffic controllers reported the event to police and halted aircraft operations for 30 minutes," the statement said.
"During this time around 20 aircraft chose to hold in the air until they received clearance to land and one aircraft chose to divert."

Sorry, I tried to post the link, but I am only permitted to do this after ten posts.

[Karearea]

Here's the link:

Drone at Auckland Airport diverts flight, causes delays - NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12007484)

[DroneDog]

The Chinese have conducted some tests regarding a collision, interesting video.


https://vids.onsizzle.com/caactv-sina-video-to-simulate-the-speed-of-an-airplane-china-29858413.mp4

[funfly]

Makes a change from frozen chickens I suppose! However the biggest problem must be from engine ingress.

[Flapping_Madly]

Two moving objects hitting each other is a collision.
If one moving object is stationary it is an allision.
However for this to work you need to consider that the moving aircraft are ships: in this case airships.
I'll get my coat.

[Mark in CA]

The projects are among 10 announced by the U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday that will help it assess how to regulate drones and integrate them safely into U.S. air space. The United States has lagged other countries in experimentation with drones, something the program hopes to correct.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drones-companies/alphabet-intel-fedex-att-among-drone-pilot-winners-idUSKBN1IA2WC

[golfbananajam]

this from the BBC today (UK drone users face safety tests and flight restrictions - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44293905))

UK drone users face safety tests and flight restrictions

UK drone users may have to pass online safety tests under legislation being introduced to the Commons on Wednesday
Restrictions around airport boundaries have also been clarified stopping any drone flying within 1km of them.
The changes, which are set to come into effect between 30 July and 30 November, follow a rise in the number of drone near-misses with aircrafts.
Aviation Minister Baroness Sugg said the measures were needed to "protect" aircraft and their passengers.
In addition to the safety tests, people who own drones weighing 250g or more will have to register with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Some drones, usually cheaper models, weigh less than 250g. But most - especially those with built-in cameras - weigh more.
Before, the regulations had applied to aircraft that weigh 20kg or less.
All drones will also be banned from flying above 400ft (121.9m), a rule which had been mentioned previously in the CAA's Drone Code but will now be enshrined in law
Users who fail to adhere to the flight restrictions could face unlimited fines, up to five years in prison, or both.
Owners of drones over 250g, who do not register with the CAA or complete the safety test, could be fined up to £1,000

[Geriaviator]

Over 50 years ago our CFI called the police when someone flew a big kite from a public park 200 yards from the threshold of 22 (long since displaced of course). They weren't interested until he told them it was a criminal offence under the Air Navigation Order, after which they were very helpful. As in so many fields today, governments can devise all the legislation they like but it's only as effective as its enforcement.

[mosteo]

Just saw another video on testing drone-wing collisions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0

[poitiers]

Any airline policy to lower drone collision risk?

[Nige321]

Just saw another video on testing drone-wing collisions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0

DJI's response...

Kevin Poormon

University of Dayton Research Institute

300 College Park

Dayton, OH 45469



Dear Mr. Poormon:

I represent DJI, the world's largest manufacturer of small unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. We lead the industry in developing systems to help ensure drones continue to safely share the airspace with traditional air traffic. DJI takes aviation safety seriously. It is integral to who we are as an organization and as aviation professionals. We have proactively incorporated dozens of safety features into our products, including altitude limitation, airport geofencing, return-to-home failsafe systems, computer vision anti-collision sensors, and pilot knowledge testing. We also support research professionals who work alongside the industry and regulators to provide academic grounding to aviation safety efforts.

It is thus distressing to see how the University of Dayton Research Institute has recklessly created and promoted a video that falsely claims to depict a dangerous condition posed by one of our products. Your “Risk in the Sky?” video, blog post and media tour created a collision scenario between a drone and an airplane wing that is simply inconceivable in real life:

Your video assumes a Mooney M20 light aircraft is flying at its maximum possible speed of 200 mph, and encounters a drone apparently flying faster than its maximum possible speed of 33.5 mph. The plane could only achieve such speed at full cruise, typically more than a mile above ground. At the altitudes where that plane would conceivably encounter a Phantom drone, it would fly less than half as fast — generating less than one-fourth of the collision energy.
Your video was created contrary to established U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) crash test parameters, which assume a bird striking an airplane at its sea-level cruising speed — which is typically 161 mph to 184 mph for Mooney M20. Your video deliberately created a more damaging scenario, and was widely cited as evidence for what could happen to a large commercial jet — even though the Mooney M20 is a small plane with four seats.
Your video was not created as part of a legitimate scientific query, with little description of your testing methodology and no disclosure of data generated during the test. Your blog post describes a similar test performed with a simulated bird that caused “more apparent damage,” but your decision not to post or promote that video indicates your bias toward sowing fear. This contrasts with the reputable research performed by the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE), the FAA Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which meticulously tests a variety of impact scenarios in order to provide the public, the FAA, and the UAS industry, with supportable conclusions about risk. You have done nothing of the sort.

Given UDRI's wide-ranging publicity efforts in print, broadcast and online media, it seems clear that your misleading video and incendiary blog post seem designed to generate paid research work for UDRI at the expense of the reputation of drone technology broadly, and DJI's products specifically. Your public comments deliberately present an entirely improbable, if not impossible, event as a commonplace risk routinely faced by airplane pilots.

To elaborate on the points outlined above, the impact velocity tested, 238 mph, far exceeds any conceivable collision speed between a Mooney M20 and a DJI Phantom 2. The M20J Pilots Operating Handbook lists the maximum structural speed of a Mooney 20 at 174 knots, which is 200 mph. Cruise speed will typically be 140-160 knots (161-184 mph), more than a mile above ground. The Phantom, and our other drones, have built-in altitude limitation features. Thus in the altitudes no higher than several hundred feet above ground where a drone is likely to operate, the Mooney M20 would be taking off or landing at speeds between 70-88 knots (81-101 mph).

As for the other aircraft in this scenario, DJI has not manufactured the Phantom 2 drone for years, but its published specifications indicate a top speed of 15 meters/second, or 33.5 mph. In other words, it is virtually impossible for these two aircraft to encounter each other at the speed of your test. Given that kinetic energy, and therefore resulting damage, increases by the square of velocity, the arbitrary increase in your test velocity results in dramatically more damage.

More to the point, a test deliberately designed to generate the worst conceivable outcome is contrary to the FAA's established testing parameters, which seek to measure the risk that an aircraft is most likely to encounter. The relevant Federal Aviation Regulation states an airplane must be capable of successfully completing a flight despite striking a bird at the equivalent of the aircraft's cruise speed measured at sea level, which as stated above is 161-184 mph for the Mooney M20. Your test was thus performed at a speed 54 mph to 77 mph faster than a responsible collision test would require, creating a case that is unrealistic and damaging to the reputation of our company's products.

Reputable testing institutions have meticulously tested a variety of impact scenarios in order to provide the public, the FAA, and the drone industry with supportable conclusions about risk. ASSURE has set the standard for this work by releasing detailed reports with careful documentation of their testing methodology and hundreds of pages of data. By contrast, the limited information available about your demonstration prevents anyone from determining other flaws in your methodology and conclusions.
Your video and blog post have been promoted in media around the world, yet nowhere in any of your print or television appearances have you qualified the limited and unrealistic nature of your test. As a safety researcher, surely you understand the detrimental impact on public perception when purported scientific research is not presented with appropriate caveats and with an opportunity for peer review and alternative views.

Unbalanced, agenda-driven research does substantial harm to our industry and to our company. Policymakers at all levels of government have responded to sensational media coverage by proposing and enacting new restrictions on drone ownership and use. These limitations prevent people and businesses from using drones safely for beneficial purposes, such as performing hazardous inspections or finding missing people. At least 195 people around the world have been rescued from peril by drones, many of them saved by small drones such as DJI Phantoms. By misleading the public and promoting fear about drones, you are undermining their benefits and encouraging restrictions on their lifesaving uses.

We respectfully demand that you withdraw your research, remove the alarmist video from circulation, and issue a corrective statement to the public and to all of the media outlets you have appeared in, acknowledging that the configuration of the test was invalid given the flight envelopes of the two aircraft tested, FAA testing standards, and the limited value of a single test. Yours very truly,
Brendan M. Schulman
Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs
cc:

Dr. Allan Crasto, Director, UDRI

Mary Ann Poirier Recker, Vice President and General Counsel, University of Dayton

[mosteo]

Very interesting, thanks!

[oldshoremore2]

I have been alarmed as a member of the British Model Flying Association for about 50 years of the threat to our freedom of the skies these newcomers pose. Our membership has negotiated a good work around so we may continue our peaceful and responsible pursuance of the hobby, based on our flying tests etc. No doubt drone operating clubs would echo the sentiments and keep out of the way of man-carrying machines and their property. It isn't us you are after. Its the little ignoramuses who can get their hands on a sophisticated and easily operated bit of kit.
So why don't we insist they build in gps driven exclusion areas into all drones, whatever the weight. It can't be all that expensive if a number of them have 'return to base' switches and fantastic stabilisation computers already, can it? Such exclusion zones could also exclude prison airspace too, so excluding another antisocial use. ARTF models have been around for years now with little GA conflict but it is the advent of drones that has attracted the irresponsible and the lunatic fringe.
Sorry if this has already been said but it does seem a simple fix.

[Ian W]

;SNIP.

A bit of a straw man the repeated reference back to Mooney performance. There are several small jet GA aircraft that could be impacted by a UAS/Drone that could be traveling at 250kts the legal limiting speed below 10,000ft. The internet is full of bragging 'drone' pilots showing how high they managed to get their drone some to the extent that they lost the command link due to the range and/or ran out of endurance. The world is waiting for _the_ midair collision that will happen.

[airsound]

FlightGlobal reports: ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/drone-missed-heathrow-bound-787s-engine-by-10ft-452882/?cmpid=NLC FGFG FGFIN-2018-1023-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/drone-missed-heathrow-bound-787s-engine-by-10ft-452882/?cmpid=NLC FGFG FGFIN-2018-1023-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh))...unmanned aerial vehicle was flown within 10ft of a Boeing 787 on approach to London Heathrow.

The aircraft had been operating at 3,200ft on approach to runway 27L on 25 June, according to the UK Airprox Board.

It says a “drone-like object” was seen to pass just below the right wing, avoiding an impact with the starboard engine.


This refers to Airprox 2018154, and the Airprox Board report goes on to say - my bold:The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

It's surely only a matter of time...

airsound

[lomapaseo]

It's surely only a matter of time...


as are all things in aviation. The issue is encounter frequency vs level of impact to the flight. So far I have seen no data to assess the probability of a failure to safely land.

[KelvinD]

I wonder how easy it is to identify an object passing you at 150mph and perhaps below or above you?
While watching departures at Heathrow recently, I watched as a Buzzard turned up and began circling to the South of the last couple of hundred yards of the runway. The bird's pattern was slightly elliptical so took the bird closer to the runway with each circuit. An aircraft departed and the bird was below and slightly to one side of the aircraft. The bird wasn't bothered by the sight and sound of his huge brother roaring by and continued focusing on his potential prey. A second aircraft then departed and this time the bird was slightly closer and slightly higher than previously. About this time, the controller was heard warning departing aircraft of the possibility of a drone being flown in the area. This warning was soon modified to include "but reports say it may be a bird", which of course it was. This incident highlighted how difficult it must be to identify something the size of a buzzard, 100 ft or so below and to one side and appearing in your peripheral vision for a matter of a second or two.
I once caught a Red Kite racing a landing G450. I guess the Kite decided it couldn't eat the G450 so cleared off:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin///details.php?image_id=22620)

[Ian W]

I wonder how easy it is to identify an object passing you at 150mph and perhaps below or above you?
While watching departures at Heathrow recently, I watched as a Buzzard turned up and began circling to the South of the last couple of hundred yards of the runway. The bird's pattern was slightly elliptical so took the bird closer to the runway with each circuit. An aircraft departed and the bird was below and slightly to one side of the aircraft. The bird wasn't bothered by the sight and sound of his huge brother roaring by and continued focusing on his potential prey. A second aircraft then departed and this time the bird was slightly closer and slightly higher than previously. About this time, the controller was heard warning departing aircraft of the possibility of a drone being flown in the area. This warning was soon modified to include "but reports say it may be a bird", which of course it was. This incident highlighted how difficult it must be to identify something the size of a buzzard, 100 ft or so below and to one side and appearing in your peripheral vision for a matter of a second or two.
I once caught a Red Kite racing a landing G450. I guess the Kite decided it couldn't eat the G450 so cleared off:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin///details.php?image_id=22620)

You are doing 80mph on the interstate and you pass a half brick or road kill in your lane - insufficient time to react but you will usually be able to say what it was you saw. Yes there will be some cases where a hawk in 'hover' prior to the stoop could be mistaken for a small UAS but in a lot of cases if close enough to be 'providence that it did not hit' the pilot will recognize what it was the aircraft just missed.

[ShotOne]

Agreed, Ian but in many cases you’re not. And we’re talking double interstate speeds

[DIBO]

It's surely only a matter of time...
source 'sounds' reliable
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64753

[DaveReidUK]

source 'sounds' reliable
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64753

The "source" appears to be someone who took a photo of a dented radome and then made an assertion (which they declined a request to substantiate) that the pilot had been asked to report it as a birdstrike.

Hardly conclusive. Maybe it was reported as a birdstrike because that's what it was ?

[.Scott]

source 'sounds' reliable
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64753 (https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64753)
Judging from the size and shape of the dent, and the lack of any scratches, it certainly looks like a bird strike.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x896/drzeo7twoaarpv8_f28314e154ffb5c8d6a0f12b0ae6103e87cab57d.jpg

Bird strike or drone strike?

... and despite the claim that they were not disclosing the airline, the winglet says "Ryanair".

[DIBO]

The "source" appears to be someone who took a photo of a dented radome
He made a lot of in flight photos from the LHS of a B737NG, so let's assume 🙂 he is a captain. Circumstancial "evidence" indicates he is french or lives in France and at a certain point in time probably worked for the airline that shall not been named. And likes to do a bit of 'voltige' from
​aerodrome bordeaux-leognan-saucats.
But he did not take the photo of the dented radome.
Supposedly the pilots of the 'impacted' flight took the photo and identified the object as a drone.
Of course, one cannot exclude he holds a grudge against that airline and made this story up.
On the other hand....
Anyhow, if this story ever turns out to be true, the drone collision is not the worst part of the story.

[Mark in CA]

A Russian-speaking man from Cambridgeshire has become the first person in the UK to be convicted of illegally flying a drone beneath a police helicopter during a search operation.

First UK conviction for reckless drone flying (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/16/drone_pilot_fined_flying_under_police_helicopter/)

[Nige321]

Everyone keeps saying he's the first.
What about this one... (https://www.warwickshire.police.uk/article/34700/Stratford-upon-Avon-male-is-first-to-be-convicted-of-Drone-related-offences-under-the-Air-Navigation-Order-2016)

Following an investigation by Shipston Police Safer Neighbourhood Team 37 year old Richard SMITH pleaded guilty to 15 offences that took place over the course of four drone flights between December 2016 and January 2017.His conviction at Leamington Spa Magistrates Court today (05/07/2017) has resulted in a £259 fine with £30 surcharge and £185 costs imposed. An order to retain the drone used in commission of the offences has also been issued.The investigation began following a report of YouTube video footage showing concerning drone flights taking place across South Warwickshire. PC Craig Purcell was able to obtain evidence of a drone being flown in the following manner;1) Up to 2km from the operator and well beyond his visual line of sight.

2) Over the main road, houses and school of Lower Quinton village

3) Through fog and above the cloud base

4) Within the restricted airspace of Wellesbourne Airfield

5) Purposely flown to a distance that caused the aircraft to lose signal and initiate the 'failsafe' return to home mode.There were a number of other issues noted and many of the offences took place with a non standard DJI Phantom 3 drone that had been modified with software and hardware to increase the flight distance capabilities.Despite having never flown a drone and with no understanding of the laws in place PC Purcell was immediately able to find the relevant legislation online and see where the issues lay. The investigation took place quickly and the Officer noted similarities to driving offences.Following conviction PC Purcell has said,"We see many video examples across the Internet of people purchasing their first drone and failing to adhere to laws put in place to protect members of the public. People need to be aware that you can't just buy one of these machines, throw it into the air and start flying wherever you want without thought.The cost of drone technology is reducing rapidly. The second hand market is bringing costs down even further meaning a 1kg to 2kg drone can be bought by somebody who has no idea how many times it has been crashed in the past or if it is structurally still sound.The courts have recognised the issue today and with the decision to deprive Mr SMITH of his drone on conviction we hope this sends a strong message to those who are giving the responsible hobbyist community a bad name."

[Mark in CA]

Everyone keeps saying he's the first.
What about this one... (https://www.warwickshire.police.uk/article/34700/Stratford-upon-Avon-male-is-first-to-be-convicted-of-Drone-related-offences-under-the-Air-Navigation-Order-2016)

Maybe semantics? Your fellow pleaded guilty, while the other went to trial where the prosecution won a conviction.

[ETOPS]

There is a day long demo of drone conspicuity tech at Manchester Airport EGCC on 21st Nov 2018.

https://www.operationzenith.com/

The trial involves equipment supplied by UAvionix..

https://uavionix.com/blog/uavionix-utm-broadcast-utm-b-and-ads-b-for-safer-skies-near-airports/

[DaveReidUK]

Maybe semantics? Your fellow pleaded guilty, while the other went to trial where the prosecution won a conviction.

It's a conviction whether it follows a guilty plea or a guilty verdict.

I think the distinction being made here is that the Leamington Spa miscreant was the first to be convicted under the provisions of the UK Air Navigation Order that relate to flying in proximity to people and to an airfield, whereas the Cambridgeshire conviction was the first (as the article states) involving proximity to another aircraft.

Neither of those was the first drone-related conviction in the UK, which was in April 2014.

[ETOPS]

The demonstrations were a success and, as a result, NATS will begin using this system in the UK from December 2018.

https://www.altitudeangel.com/blog/guardianutm-os-successfully-powered-operation-zenith-the-uk-s-most-comprehensive-drone-trial/

[Airbubba]

From Tom Podolec's Twitter feed:

Aeromexico AM770 from Guadalajara suffered nose cone/radome damage on approach to Tijuana. Local media reporting it collided with a drone. No injuries reported. XA-ADV Boeing 737-800.

http://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1073276235281850368

[Airbubba]

More from Bloomberg:
BusinessBoeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Possible Midair Drone StrikeByAndrea Navarro (https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/ASCqrj7dOOQ/andrea-navarro) andAlan Levin (https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AQjkBDLS74Y/alan-levin)December 13, 2018, 6:37 PM EST

Aircraft landed without incident in Tijuana after hit to nose
Crew members heard a ‘pretty loud bang’ shortly before landing

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/igCxgm8uy70k/v1/1200x-1.jpgThe damaged nose of Aeromexico’s 737 jet. Source: AFAC AviacaoGrupo Aeromexico SAB is investigating whether a drone slammed into a Boeing Co. 737 jetliner as the aircraft approached its destination in Tijuana, Mexico, on the U.S. border.Images on local media (https://www.razon.com.mx/mexico/dron-impacta-a-boeing-de-aeromexico-en-tijuana-pasajeros-afectaciones-vuelo-aterrizaje-pasajeros-ultimas-noticias-online/) showed considerable damage to the nose of the 737-800, which was operating Wednesday as Flight 773 from Guadalajara. In a cabin recording, crew members can be heard saying they heard a “pretty loud bang” and asking the control tower to check if the nose was damaged. The collision happened shortly before landing.View image on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Milenio/status/1073282573621714944/photo/1)https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuUQzIhUwAAM36i?format=jpg&name=medium (https://twitter.com/Milenio/status/1073282573621714944/photo/1)“The exact cause is still being investigated,” Aeromexico said in a statement. “The aircraft landed normally and the passengers’ safety was never compromised.”The potential drone strike stoked fears that the rising use of uncrewed aircraft will endanger planes filled with passengers. While most nations prohibit drones from flying in pathways reserved for airliners, the millions of small consumer devices that have been purchased around the world can’t be tracked on radar, making it difficult for authorities to enforce the rules. In addition, many users don’t know the rules or don’t follow them.https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iE3pePK_i9K0/v1/1200x-1.jpgThe damaged nose of Aeromexico’s 737 jet.
Source: AFAC AviacaoMore IncidentsThe U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has logged a dramatic increase in the number of safety reports involving drones in recent years and air-carrier industry groups earlier this year called on the government to tighten regulations after a video was released purporting to show a drone flying just feet away from an airliner near Las Vegas. There have been about 6,000 drone sightings by pilots -- some of them by airline crews -- through June, according to FAA data.For more on how drone oversight has been faulted as incidents soar, click here (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/terminal/P992V06K50Y6)

So far, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has investigated one confirmed midair collision (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/drone-s-ease-piercing-new-york-no-fly-zone-underscores-risks) involving a drone. An Army helicopter hit the small hobbyist device near Staten Island, New York, in September 2017, causing relatively minor damage.

Canada’s Transportation Safety Board concluded that a small drone struck a turboprop carrying six passengers near Quebec on Oct. 12, 2017. The drone caused a dent in one wing and the commercial flight was able to land safely, investigators said in a report (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2017/a17q0162/a17q0162.pdf).A helicopter crash-landed in Charleston, South Carolina, in February after the pilot attempted to evade a drone, according (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/what-may-be-first-drone-linked-copter-crash-being-investigated) to a police report.

In a 2017 study (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/faa-warns-of-drone-collision-risks-with-airplanes-as-use-grows) based on computerized models, the FAA concluded that drones would cause more damage than birds of a similar size because they contain metal parts. Significant damage to windshields, wings and tail surfaces of aircraft was possible, the study found. However, the damage a small consumer drone could cause was unlikely to prove catastrophic, the study found.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-13/aeromexico-737-jetliner-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-strike

[KelvinD]

There is a report in today's news of a drone having a very close call with a 737 at London Stansted:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-46540592

[2dPilot]

I would suggest it was the 737 had a close call with a drone - the 737 was, presumably, in it's assigned airspace.

That said, is there room for some scepticism here? At 10,000 ft, the 737 presumably wasn't on an assigned approach to Stanstead (or any other nearby airport?) and flying fast > 250mph?
Very few drones I've ever heard of can even dream of that altitude and those certainly not capable of significant horizontal speeds. Nor could they maintain that altitude for more than bare minutes.

Is it common for pilots to actually see a single bird before the a strike? I ask (as a non pilot), recalling an in-flght visit to the cockpit of a 747 (decades back when it was allowed) and on seeing both pilots and engineer twisted in their seats to chat with each other and I - I asked why no one looked out the windows. The reply was, "No point. Even if we see something at these closing speeds, there would be no time to react". They were referring to something the size of another aircraft.

Really, can pilots see and correctly identify a 1 meter object in those conditions?

[DaveReidUK]

Really, can pilots see and correctly identify a 1 meter object in those conditions?

Both of the 737 pilots saw it - the Captain called "drone" and the F/O identified it as a "dark coloured square.rectangle shaped object".

[Dog Star]

More re "possible" drone strike Aeromexico airliner at Tijuana, Mexico from WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/possible-drone-collision-renews-focus-on-safety-systems-11544965203?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=6&cx_tag=contextual&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

[Evey_Hammond]

LGW currently “shut for the foreseeable” thanks to a drone - lots of diversions/holding going on. Shoot the drone down (& the idiot controlling it).

[3wheels]

I have just looked at the Gatwick arrivals website and it appears in excess of 21 flights have diverted.

In view of the seriousness of this event it would be interesting to know how these drones were reported/seen, especially at night.

One would hope that the threat was real and, if so, the culprits are caught.

[MATELO]

Numerous people saw them including a crew taxiing for take off, I also believe their are a couple of videos going around.

updated: https://www.airlive.net/breaking-london-gatwick-closed-after-a-drone-spotted-close-to-runway/

[chopper2004]

I’m here at North Terminal departures waiting for my flight to awfully it has not been cancelled .......yet. Do feel for hundreds if not thousands of pax queuing up here .

Wtf is happening ....is it a bunch of young or old morons who think this is a game or something more sinister ...to disrupt air traffic .....

If there was a time for this.counter drone drone (this one I saw at Helitech which fires a net to catch the adversary in mid air), it’s needed now.

cheers

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/929f30d9_8eca_4d42_a4b8_57f7db104cde_0e41bde466837d51a967f06 ce6a91a8b38600473.jpeg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/c5b33c8e_bde4_408e_b3c9_a206d6863d53_ce94c0da866a4cadbf26601 084f874b593be4fdf.jpeg

[2dPilot]

Just seen this video: Drones Over Gatwick
Video
Not flying over, but hovering over Gatwick and well lit to be seen. No 'accident' there, clearly a deliberate, planned event.

[wiggy]

Just seen this video: Drones Over Gatwick
Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sghXf4LjE0g)
Not flying over, but hovering over Gatwick and well lit to be seen. No 'accident' there, clearly a deliberate, planned event.

Looks like the standard poor quality UFO video but even so TBH to my eyes the bright moving white light in that video looks more likely to be from a (?police) helicopter than a drone.

[anchorhold]

I wonder when we are going to be told this is a well planned protest by environmentalists! I am just wondering if the airport has been warned of the drones by the operators, and it closed by NOTAM, can it be a case of endangering aircraft? However the flight of a drone within the ATZ clearly is an offence if they can find the offender.

I would say the problems of drones at public gatherings, prisons and airports if police firearms units and transport police had shotguns within their armory. But the trouble with this, being what I believe a protest, will be multiple launches of drones.

[Auxtank]

From SkyNews a couple of minutes ago, so they're still there;

"Gatwick COO tells me ‘there is a drone on my airfield right now’, calls it an ‘irresponsible act’ that’s affected at least 10,000 people #GatwickAirport (https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23GatwickAirport)

Gottcha?
https://i.postimg.cc/wjTF7hwq/4uiga.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
lightshot (https://postimages.org/)

[ATC Watcher]

Re the video posted here , as said before it indeed looks more like an helicopter than a drone , ,
also this morning from the LGW web site : "We also have the helicopter up in the air but the police advice us that it would be dangerous to seek to shoot the drone down because of what may happen to the stray bullets."
Anyway I think more to this story than just spotting a couple of drones. Time will tell .

[Nige321]

Something doesn't ring right about all this.
The airport was shut last night at 21:00
This morning at 9:00 the airport director states "there is still a drone over the airport"
Where's the video of this?
Why can't NPAS film it, ID the type?
Wait for it to return home?
How big is the battery...

[WestofEMA]

I seem to recall that Dutch police were training birds of prey to catch drones. This was back in 2016, so would of thought that this could be one method to get the airport back in business.

[cjm_2010]

The obvious solution is for the airport to hire a commercial operator to fly another drone into the one that's being flown.

I strongly suspect it's operating on a pre-programmed GPS flight path. I doubt the 'operators' are anywhere in the vicinity, although they could be anywhere in a large search radius.

If it has a camera on board, it'll be underneath, leaving a huge blind spot. All the other drone has to do is descend upon the target from above, interfere with one of the props & the errant quad will be downed in seconds. No need for bullets or complicated net delivery systems. It really is that simple. I'm amazed no one's thought of this already. Even if the controlled drone is damaged beyond repair in the process, it's only a few hundred quid, instead of tens of thousands spent on diversions & passenger accommodation.

The propellors on most of these are pretty fragile. If the drone being taken down demonstrates any evasive manoeuvres that must mean the operator is within sight of it, meaning they could be apprehended. And if the downed unit is recovered, it'll have GPS log data onboard - including where it took off from.

I'm glad I sold mine several years ago!

[DIBO]

I seem to recall that Dutch police were training birds of prey to catch drones. This was back in 2016, so would of thought that this could be one method to get the airport back in business.
And they stopped the project a year later...

[silverelise]

something is not right here....not an expert but i find quite difficult that a drone can fly for hours over an aiprot without drain out of battery, or that a decent video from any bypasser is caught.

A news report I listened to early this morning (which admittedly I haven't heard repeated since) stated that there were "several" drones flying over the airfield which made me wonder if whoever is doing this has at least two units so that one is always on charge ready to take over from one returning with a low battery.

The news is currently saying the Police have 20 units out looking for those responsible but that's going to be a real needle in a haystack search unless they get lucky - the controller could quite literally be miles away from the airport, sat on a hill somewhere, in a car, in an outbuilding etc. They might never be found.

[cjm_2010]

It's time though......how long after a drone appeared overhead would it be before said commercial operator could be on site?

But, maybe a case for having some drones at each airport on 'QRA' and have some of the airside ground staff that do the bird scare duties cross-trained in drone operation, could easily keep one at the ready in the duty vehicles....??

I kept my P3 in a fitted flightcase. Smaller than an average suitcase, and could also hold several battery packs. One could be up in the air within seconds, especially if kept calibrated & stored with the props already screwed on. This whole mess could have been dealt with there and then. I'm amazed it's been allowed to carry on this long!

And now the effects are gaining publicity, expect copycat attacks...

[Wellfan]

Sky News reporting that one of the drones is a heavy industrial drone, not an off the shelf model,

[DroneDog]

Sadly this seems to be a deliberate act, an environmental protest or something else to disrupt a major airport. Attaching the lights was to attract attention.
This incident has infuriated many responsible drones owners whether for business or pleasure who abide by the rules and fly responsibly.

Hopefully, the culprits will be caught, the cost to the airlines and the airports if horrific but if I were a passenger who has been affected I would seek redress via the small claims court against whoever is responsible. A few thousand claims for lost business or inconvenience will make others think twice.

[Memetic]

The environmental protest group Extinction Rebellion have a day of protest planned in London for the 18th of December. I wonder if there is a connection?

[Icarus2001]

So a group of say five anarchists could spend about three thousand pounds on "drones" and close Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton and Birmingham for half a day. This would suggest that there is a global market for anti-drone technology.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/anti-drone-technologies/

[silverelise]

Sussex Police saying the last drone sighting was at 08:45. How much longer do they need to leave it before they can declare it safe enough to re-open the airfield?

[Easy Street]

On the scale of risk, would a police marksman with a sniper's rifle be any more random or unguided in terms of unanticipated deleterious effect than that of an airport operative with a thunderclap bird scarer ?

Yes, it will definitely be more random and is in no way comparable to use of a shotgun, where the pellets quickly slow down and fall. Any rifle rounds that miss (and probably even those that hit, as a drone wouldn’t slow them down much) would go a long way up and fall to earth still with lethal potential. Hunting with rifles is only done in open wilderness or where the line of sight puts terrain behind the intended target to collect any wayward rounds. Aiming a rifle upwards would need the field of fire to be cleared for a few miles in the chosen direction, a practical impossibility near an airport.

When police or military snipers are targeting an active shooter, more risk can be taken because there is a need to balance risk to life of the shooter’s actual/potential targets against that to a possible single distant bystander. The number of potential targets is therefore a consideration, but there is still an imperative to reduce risk to bystanders to an reasonable minimum. In the aviation case, shooting at a drone with a rifle might be justified if an aircraft was on final reserve and needed to land immediately; otherwise diversion is ‘reasonable’ and from that perspective is the most legally defensible option.

[silverelise]

Surely one of these is the answer:
http://i.imgur.com/9OGcpiq.png (https://imgur.com/9OGcpiq)

[ImPlaneCrazy]

A slightly less severe option than a Tomahawk or other ground-to-air missile which I've seen suggested!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9ElNjgZCDpQ

[Navy_Adversary]

If they catch the culprits for the LGW Drones, a very long custodial sentence should make anyone think twice about doing similar in the future. A minimum of 10 years inside if I were a Judge.
ps: Any attempts by the convicted to fly drones into their prison with drugs, then another 5 years for each conviction.

As a last resort, expel the vagabonds to Garvie Island.

[ExDubai]

According to Eurocontrol Gatwick will be closed till 4PM local time

[Easy Street]

​bearing in mind drones in the military sphere are already the next best thing to sliced-bread for intelligence gathering and asymmetrical threat suppression. No counter-measure already ? Don't believe it.

Military rules of engagement may sometimes give scope to use lethal force where activities such as intelligence gathering are potential (rather than imminent or actual) threats. That kind of freedom is less likely to be given outside conflict situations and very much less likely to police. Military counter-drone technologies include electronic options: possibly problematic for GPS and other navigation systems!

[ExDubai]

All flights supended for today.

[silverelise]

Police marksmen now on the airfield.

[Wedge]

Dr Alan McKenna, from the University of Kent, said the drones appeared to be "of an industrial size" not "one you can buy from the shops".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754

[trolliedphil]

I do wonder why a Police helicopter can't follow one when it needs to go and land. Someone will go to pick it up / change its battery at some point.

[Nige321]

If the staff at Gatwick have seen drones in the last couple of hours, how come NPAS hasn't simply hovered nearby and followed it home using FLIR, or waited for the battery to flatten it falls out the sky.
And the place and its surroundings are now crawling with media, how come there's no video or stills of the errant device(s)...?

[deadheader]

"All Gatwick flights now cancelled until at least 1900 GMT, coordinated and deliberate drone operations are still ongoing in and around the airfield, multiple police forces and other resources now deployed, do not underestimate the seriousness of this unprecedented and developing situation."

[Tetsuo]

Only photo I could find is below. Eddie Mitchell is a journalist for BBC and also a drone pilot.

https://twitter.com/brightonsnapper/status/1075661518933499904

[unmanned_droid]

Only photo I could find is below. Eddie Mitchell is a journalist for BBC and also a drone pilot.

https://twitter.com/brightonsnapper/status/1075661518933499904
This pic is of the npas helo searching? Not the troublemaker drone?

[Mechta]

Sometimes I wonder if I should change my name to Mystic Meg?

8th Dec 2014 Post #55 https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/552428-new-caa-legislation-affects-model-flying-4.html#post8774881


If they were flying to a pre-programmed destination then the up and down link wouldn't be required. This would make RF jamming on up and downlinks pointless. Jamming GPS frequencies would have so many implications for all the other users that I would doubt it would be considered.

As for anti-aircraft use of drones, only two would be needed to take out the majority of airliners. Jamming of up and downlink frequencies would be worth doing in this case, as the video would be necessary to home in on the target.

The intentional nuisance value of drones should not be underestimated. A number of them flying a GPS racetrack course could close an airport for an hour or so, whilst attempts to down them would be likely to create a FOD hazard.

[Speedloafer]

Military now deployed.

[Piper_Driver]

It seems tto me the safest alternative is to shoot it down from above using a shotgun in a police helicopter. At close range it would be hard to miss. You could see where the overspray was going to wind up, thereby minimizing any collateral damage. If you approach from above the drone camera will never see you coming.

[Fostex]

Most drones (e.g. DJI) are fitted with a mix of GPS, solid-state accelerometers and gyros, barometric altimeters and multiple cameras for object avoidance and visual odometry. They really are quite sophisticated and relatively inexpensive.

Quite shocking that it is possible to purchase technology like this without regulation or licence.

[Nige321]

Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6513923/Chaos-Gatwick-drone-spotted-near-airport-SHUTS-runway.html) has a video. Make of that what you will....

[Asturias56]

And what would you do if you were in charge...just curious. They're not amateurs.

Having been through LGW today it seems that the initial incursions were overnight - it cannot be beyond the wit of man, even Surrey Police, to follow any drone observed for some part of the way. If there are no flights a police helicopter should be able to follow them (again part of the way). Then ground patrols in the area.

All I hear is hand wringing and buck passing and suggestions of "studies"

[DroneDog]

Looking at the latest footage taken from a mobile phone, to my eye, it looks like a quad, for me, it has the distinctive shape of a Phantom bit it must be an early machine the later beats are geo-fenced.

Its become surreal now, these things have limited control range, nobody with a spectrum analyser and a directional antenna.

[Council Van]

After 20 hours the police have asked for the support of the military.

I wonder at what point this evening the Minister for Aviation will be handing in her resignation?

[DaveReidUK]

Maybe one thing they can do when the place reopens is to lift the flight curfew until say the 25 th to maximize use - and to make the train and bus companies run 24/7......

BBC currently reporting that the Government has temporarily lifted the night flight restrictions at the other London airports.

[Shandy52]

Various possible defences against drones have been put forward; may I add my twopence worth?
In my infosec days, there was concern expressed about the ability of "HERF" (High Energy Radio Frequency) guns to damage electronic equipment in data centres. Now, I know such things have been built using magnetrons such as those from microwave ovens; but I'm unsure whether anything exists that could fry a drone's electronics at a range of (say) 150 metres or so. Attacking the drone's electronics directly would make it unnecessary for the drone to be under direct control to be vulnerable - also avoiding the problem of flying metal.
FWIW Wikipedia has an article on "directed energy weapons".

[First.officer]

Rain forecast overnight should curtail any activity for a period....might allow LGW to re-establish a little "normality"?

[DroneDog]

Apparently, they are trying to track the op

This kit has been seen in Gatwick https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x852/drone_2d5f7fd62831fafdfce924d2bdf2bdda0d3b25f0.jpg


The gear has capabilities...

https://www.coptrz.com/dji-aeroscope/

[EDMJ]

So what if these drones had been carrying explosives, and/or had been flown directly into the path of aircraft full of passengers taxying, taking off or landing?

Gatwick Airport is currently implicitly sending the message to come and try this out, as they obviously have no means whatsoever to deal with this situation. And this probably applies to many, many other airports too.

[Airbubba]

Airport Notam'ed closed until 22Z:

A4116/18 NOTAMR A4111/18
Q) EGTT/QFALC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5109N00011W005
A) EGKK B) 1812201835 C) 1812202200
E) AIRPORT UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRONE ACTIVITY IN THE GATWICK ATZ

[Dct_Mopas]

LGW was closed earlier until 1600z. No sitings of drones for a few hours, low and behold at 1600z the drone made an appearance. This group/ individual is having a right laugh at us all, just useless. This could go on for days!

[Airbubba]

They're now saying the airport is closed until 0600z tomorrow....

Correct, from Eurocontrol:

EGKK( Gatwick)
Airfield unavailable extended until 0600 21st Dec.
Intended reopening is at 06oo UTC 21st Dec 2018.

Not sure but I would think if this happened at JFK or LGA ops would continue with a line added to the ATIS like 'Birds and unauthorized drone activity in vicinity of airport, advise controller on initial contact that you have information ZULU.'

[Dct_Mopas]

Ryanair flights for tomorrow (Friday 21st) all moved to operate out of Stansted instead of Gatwick.

Gatwick airport saying passengers should not travel to the airport for the foreseeable future, including tomorrow. (Sky news)

Going well then...

[unmanned_droid]

Apparently, they are trying to track the op

This kit has been seen in Gatwick https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x852/drone_2d5f7fd62831fafdfce924d2bdf2bdda0d3b25f0.jpg


The gear has capabilities...

https://www.coptrz.com/dji-aeroscope/

My research and contacts suggests there are a very varied set of opinions on this kit. I wish them luck.

[PPRuNe Towers]

No news. Closed till 0600z. Jetblast for the hopeless and opinionated.

Rob

[Airbubba]

I guess the mitigation is the sniper team...

A4124/18 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QFALT/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5109N00011W005
A) EGKK B) 1812210418 C) 1812211200
E) AD OPEN. RISK OF INCREASED DRONE ACTIVITY. MITIGATION IN PLACE.

[Airbubba]

From www.gatwickairport.com (www.gatwickairport.com) :

Flight DisruptionFriday 21st December 04:11

Gatwick continues to advise passengers to check the status of their flight with their airline before travelling to the airport.

We are currently working with airlines and air traffic controllers to introduce a limited number of flights over the coming hours.

[Airbubba]

From Eurocontrol:

21DEC 05:16

EGKK (London Gatwick) will be available after 0800 utc but with low acceptance rate.
Aircraft operators are asked to keep their FPLs updated.
When flights are ready to go please request the departure TWR to send a REA message to ETFMS.

NMOC Brussels

[Airbubba]

Looks like the first aircraft to land and test the mitigation is Thomas Cook 4801, a B-753 from EMA.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1418x837/tcx4801_c75a644f6a0cb514044f151e26766497cf31aab1.jpg

[clareprop]

05:55 Local ....Condor 757 out of East Midlands appears to have just landed. Update: 06:05Local..China Eastern A330 from Shanghai on approach...
FR showing about ten other flights heading for LGW.

[Wycombe]

Isn't jamming being used to stop drones going over prison walls? Not sure if that technology can be used in an airport environment, but if it can it should be.

[racedo]

Flights are starting again thankfully but there is a huge backlog to clear.

[Pittsextra]

Just listening to radio 4 and the interview with Gatwick operating officer and one wonders what on earth took so long to implement the plan suggesting there was no prior plan..

[olster]

Hopeless and opiniated...seriously? Gatwick closes down and the politicians who are responsible are beyond criticism?

[El Bunto]

Isn't jamming being used to stop drones going over prison walls? Not sure if that technology can be used in an airport environment, but if it can it should be.

Jamming only works on drones under remote command, not those with pre-programmed onboard routes. To affect them you'd need to hit them with EMP or jam local GPS reception*, neither of which seems safe in the vicinity of an airport.

* at which point they could revert to the ancient technique of dead-reckoning; fly south for three seconds, then west etc

[Icarus2001]

or jam local GPS reception*, neither of which seems safe in the vicinity of an airport. Yes clearly risky jamming GPS signal locally near an airport when all the aircraft ARE GROUNDED.

[Pontius]

There is zero terror involved here.

Terrorism does not have to involve an actual act. Just the threat is enough for terrorism to work. The threat here is that potentially an aircraft could hit a drone and crash, killing all on board. You do not need that to actually happen to determine the threat of the drones is a terrorism event. There's certainly no terror.....yet. Would you rather there was before classing this as an act of terrorism or is the potential not enough for you?

[DaveReidUK]

Yes clearly risky jamming GPS signal locally near an airport when all the aircraft ARE GROUNDED.

Jamming GPS - anywhere - is likely to have massive unintended consequences well beyond aviation.

[atakacs]

Do we have any information as of why the airport could be now opened?
Did they indentify the operator(s)? What made flight operation safe again?
Wonder if this was some sort of extorsion scheme with a ransom being paid...

[Alderney]

Could it be simply that, rather than any high-tech solution, the weather is too blustery for drones today? That could account for Gatwick's cautious restart.

[MikeBanahan]

Jamming GPS - anywhere - is likely to have massive unintended consequences well beyond aviation.

There is considerable concern in some circles that GPS has also become a critical infrastructure component for the use of its timing signals, including for synchronising the time slots used in the Airwave system which all the emergency services depend on for communications, see www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/global-navigation-space-systems

I find it particularly alarming that the National Grid may be dependent on it also. That this should not have happened is clear, but mitigating it is a whole other matter.

[scudpilot]

Terrorism does not have to involve an actual act. Just the threat is enough for terrorism to work. The threat here is that potentially an aircraft could hit a drone and crash, killing all on board. You do not need that to actually happen to determine the threat of the drones is a terrorism event. There's certainly no terror.....yet. Would you rather there was before classing this as an act of terrorism or is the potential not enough for you?

I thought the definition of Terrorism involved causing disruption to infrastructure and financial issues.
This pretty much fits the bill IMHO.

[Gove N.T.]

I'm afraid that drones are an unconfessed nightmare for airport security managers. No need to say more.

written Oct 2014
How true and i wonder how many airport managers and regulatory authorities around the world will be looking at this as a matter of urgency.

[Coconutty]

No amount of Legislation wiill stop a determined Criminal - by definition Criminals break the Law !

Comparisons with Bird Strikes are flawed - Birds don't have built in Power Sources - with their associated explosive risks.

IMHO the only real answer is the use of Technology to either prevent Drones from operating in and aorund Airfileds,
or to interrupt their flight ( whether this be Signal Jammmg, or a more physical form of intervention ) to bring them down,
where they can be forensically examined with a view to identifing the culprit(s).

[cattletruck]

Something SteveH said got me thinking. Besides firing chickens into engines during certification they should also be firing in a couple of popular drones.

It's an awful problem that is difficult to solve, much like the laser pointer problem.

[Kiltrash]

If this is Terrorism then so is a crack pot lashing themselves to a M25 motorway bridge causing massive tailbacks both ways.
​​Somthing we may have to live with. Especially if the miscreants are not caught and severely dealt with. No videos uploaded from the perps or claims of why made public yet . A good day for Mrs May to bury #Brexit news. Coincidence?

[sky9]

This individual has done what BALPA has been trying to do for some years without success, make the politicians and airports see sense.
Why are drones permitted within Class A airspace without specific clearance from ATC?

[Tom Bangla]

I thought the definition of Terrorism involved causing disruption to infrastructure and financial issues.
This pretty much fits the bill IMHO.
There's no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, but this is from a 2005 publication (Root Causes of Terrorism):
"terrorism is a set of methods of combat rather than an identifiable ideology or movement, and involves premeditated use of violence against (primarily) non-combatants in order to achieve a psychological effect of fear on others than the immediate targets.”
Hence, terrorism seeks to cause fear through violence or the threat of violence. These drones at LGW seem to have done exactly that, even if the whole story is yet to emerge.

[blind pew]

Flatmate of mine whilst beating up the countryside very low and fast got a model aircraft with the intake of the hunter. The energy in a large heavy lump of aluminium at more than double the speed of an airliner on approach of take off is considerably more than an over the counter drone. It did go through the skin and take out his hydraulics but that was all. Thirty years on model aircraft are still flying everywhere and the frogs still manage to route their low level flights over my brothers club without bothering about his models flying above them. It’s politics wrt more big brother and taking our minds of the political crooks.

[felixflyer]

Saw this advert on the tube the other day.

Maybe a group like this were involved.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/20181219_084727_48a9cf4c988ed50d8601db2e7b98bfab69600a59.jpg

[ShotOne]

Sky9, please explain how piling stricter rules on law-abiding UAS operators will combat attacks of this sort

[vancouv]

Sky9 - Why are drones permitted within Class A airspace without specific clearance from ATC?

Silly old ATC, if only they'd refused the drone operators request for clearance this could all have been prevented. :ugh:

[wiggy]

Flatmate of mine whilst beating up the countryside very low and fast got a model aircraft with the intake of the hunter. The energy in a large heavy lump of aluminium at more than double the speed of an airliner on approach of take off is considerably more than an over the counter drone. It did go through the skin and take out his hydraulics but that was all. Thirty years on model aircraft are still flying everywhere and the frogs still manage to route their low level flights over my brothers club without bothering about his models flying above them. It’s politics wrt more big brother and taking our minds of the political crooks.

I don’t recall many RC aircraft of that era being a “large heavy lump of aluminium”, and whilst I take your point about relative speeds I don’t fancy finding out what a heavy, dense battery pack on a household drone will do to the Fan (and downstream components) on one of the current high bypass engines, especially when running at takeoff power.

[ShyTorque]

I don’t recall many RC aircraft of that era being a “large heavy lump of aluminium”,

The airframe wasn't, but a 10cc glow plug engine and a tuned pipe are far heavier than an anti-aircraft round.

[sky9]

Sky9 -

Silly old ATC, if only they'd refused the drone operators request for clearance this could all have been prevented. :ugh:

No but drones are technically aircraft and there is absolutely no reason why drones could not be given permission to operate at a specific time place and height within controlled airspace with the clearance could be given electronically. At the present time it would appear that they have been given unrestricted access up to within 1km of an airfield and a specific height in all airspace
The current operator if he gets caught will no doubt claim that he wasn't endangering an aircraft because there were all grounded and the jury will no doubt find him innocent or the judge will give him a suspended sentence.

[diddy1234]

wouldn't this whole incident be rather ironic if it turns out to be an old boy farmer trying 'to get with the times' with a industrial drone to crop spray his fields (I know there is a lot more requirements needed).
not having the experience or full know how but dangerous enough to think he knows and planning a route over his crops and sending the drone on it's way.
I can just imagine him (or her) sitting in his front room thinking 'this new fangled technology is great', completely unaware what is actually going on. none the wiser.

[switch_on_lofty]

3 years ago police cuts removed 50 specialist officers from airport flightpath protection. Originally deployed to counter the perceived terrorist manpad threat, would have been useful to instead expand remit to counter the well-warned drone threat. All I could find was this Reuters article. There must be more in the public domain somewhere.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-police-exclusive-idUKKBN0TN0Q320151204

"Known as Flight Path Protection Teams (FPPT), the British police units were set up in 2008 to find and negate the threat from locations near airports where militants could fire Manpads or similar weaponry at planes as they take off and land.

They also work with local communities to collect intelligence about any suspicious activity.

Police chiefs plan to reduce their number from about 50 officers around the country to two constables based in London because they have assessed that there is currently minimal risk of such attacks, the two sources told Reuters."

[RealFish]

Hopeless and opiniated...seriously? Gatwick closes down and the politicians who are responsible are beyond criticism?

I think that you'll find that the person(s) responsible is / are someone skulking around Gatwick in possession of a drone.

[WHBM]

All reminds me of the Iceland volcano of 10 years ago, nobody is left in authority who is capable of taking decisions on what to do, all too frightened of being second-guessed by somebody afterwards so leave it to "someone else" along the chain.

[cjm_2010]

I think that you'll find that the person(s) responsible is / are someone skulking around Gatwick in possession of a drone.

I'd put money on that actual team (not one single individual) being in a van, heading up the M3 at this very moment, towards the M25 and Heathrow airport to repeat the same shenanigans again - probably on Christmas eve.

[Auxtank]

I'd put money on that actual team (not one single individual) being in a van, heading up the M3 at this very moment, towards the M25 and Heathrow airport to repeat the same shenanigans again - probably on Christmas eve.

Possibly. But my money's on it being a demonstration of ability.
The team who did it are many miles from the EGKK now and drinking some beers and finessing their road map of intended extortion.
"EGLL - you're next unless you transfer X amount of £'s in to offshore account No; 1234, etc, etc.

[davidjpowell]

No but drones are technically aircraft and there is absolutely no reason why drones could not be given permission to operate at a specific time place and height within controlled airspace with the clearance could be given electronically. At the present time it would appear that they have been given unrestricted access up to within 1km of an airfield and a specific height in all airspace
The current operator if he gets caught will no doubt claim that he wasn't endangering an aircraft because there were all grounded and the jury will no doubt find him innocent or the judge will give him a suspended sentence.

In reality operators with a PfCO will be aware when flying in an area that is either controlled or closed to controlled airspace and will make contact with the appropriate tower. Typically they want to know where one is flying, the height and a contact number, and to get a call when flying is completed. If they have a greater concern about the proposed location if on the flightpath it is then discussed, and usually some sort of compromise worked out.

It is of course obvious that yesterday's dronist was not flying to anyone's rules.....

[Sailvi767]

Isn't jamming being used to stop drones going over prison walls? Not sure if that technology can be used in an airport environment, but if it can it should be.

jamming electronics at a airport. What could go wrong with that plan!

[chopjock]

Hopefully, the culprits will be caught, the cost to the airlines and the airports if horrific but if I were a passenger who has been affected I would seek redress via the small claims court against whoever is responsible. A few thousand claims for lost business or inconvenience will make others think twice.

We know who is responsible for closing the runways... The authorities for over reacting to the perceived danger... Looks like a small "phantom" type drone in the video, (it even had it's lights on to be seen) weighing less than 7Kgs and not even required to remain clear of controlled airspace.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

[wiggy]

We know who is responsible for closing the runways... The authorities for over reacting to the perceived danger... Looks like a small "phantom" type drone in the video, (it even had it's lights on to be seen) weighing less than 7Kgs and not even required to remain clear of controlled airspace.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

If you are going selectively pick at the U.K. regs then could I perhaps fill in a few details you’ve missed, such as the issue of flying within 1km of an airfield such as LGW ( Article 94B ) and also the important issue of Article 241, “A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property”.....

[WHBM]

Police are exploring "a number of lines of inquiry", including environmental activism and "high-end criminal behaviour".
Euphemism for they still haven't got a clue.