Drones threatening commercial a/c?

[possibleconsequences]

Well...it's back again...

[DaveReidUK]

Well...it's back again...

And your source for that is ... ?

[vintage ATCO]

There doesn't appear to be anything landing or taking off from Gatwick currently.

[RexBanner]

Aircraft being told delay not determined. FFS :mad:

[ZOOKER]

FR24 showing a few holding Dave, nothing on final approach.

[Stu B]

Breaking News on BBC TV are saying flights again suspended due to further Drone activity. No details but citing Reuter’s as their source.

[Stu B]

Actual BBC words “due to suspected drone sighting near runway “

[mikeygd]

I get the feeling this was expected. I hope measures are in place now to find and deal with the culprit.

[alexgreyhead]

Beeb reporting the Police have identified "persons of interest": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46649704

Hopefully it'll lead to someone's collar being felt...

[sejo]

Eurocontrol stating " Another drone sighted resulting in a 0-rate initially until 21:00 UTC.
High delays."

[Airbubba]

It appears that the airfield closed again at about 17Z. RAM802, a B-763 from Casa was the first to go missed. They held for a while and then diverted to LHR.

WestJet 410 from Glasgow, another B-763, seems to have plenty of fuel and they are still holding but most of the other inbounds seem to be diverting.

[Alderney]

Confirms my suspicion that the windy weather today helped Gatwick get lucky for a few hours. Now the wind's died down, the drone is back....

[Auxtank]

Confirms my suspicion that the windy weather today helped Gatwick get lucky for a few hours. Now the wind's died down, the drone is back....

2018/12/21 17:50 EGKK 211750Z 23006KT 9999 BKN032 10/06 Q1006

Looks that way.

These buggers need locking up for life. From what I can see there was traffic on final - that makes it reckless in the extreme.

[caiman27]

Looks like Gatwick has opened again. Aurigny just took off, headed for Guernsey.

[finncapt]

Don't know what I did there but it doesn't seem to want to delete.

I'm with you windsock but that is old style policing - we must have the high tech solution now.

Again, if it is a man in a white van, he would be targetting another airfield now.

I reckon the perpetrator is within a very few miles of whichever end of Gatwick these sightings are occurring.

Funny that in these days of instant messaging etc. no one has posted a photo.

[*Zwitter*]

Would a drone strike be any worse than a birdstrike?

LGW and other airports seem to host sizeable bird populations with few serious mishaps and no blanket closures...

[finncapt]

Having had a few birdstrikes in my time, I would say yes.

Think of the difference of cutting a piece of chicken relative to a piece of very burnt toast.

[Thaihawk]

Would a drone strike be any worse than a birdstrike?

LGW and other airports seem to host sizeable bird populations with few serious mishaps and no blanket closures...

Considerably worse, IMHO.

[ILS27LEFT]

Put drones in the hands of the general public, What could go wrong? How could anyone see this coming?

I tell you what I think.
We are a very advanced society, and when an "entity" gets extremely advanced it starts, somehow, missing the basics.
This is another example of missing one of the basics.
It is years that pilots have been expressing serious concerns around the danger of drones being in the wrong hands.
Nothing has been done until now.
We are all extremely lucky that "drones" have not been utilised by extreme organisations yet e.g. Daesh as the consequences of a clever and highly sophisticated drone attack are unimaginable.The disruptions at LGW are a minor event if compared to something much more serious like a drone terror attack. No need to provide examples of how deadly a terror related drone attack could be. The culprit is probably indirectly saving all of us from something much more sinister as from now on drones are on the various agencies' agendas as a priority, slightly late yes.

[dtaylor1984]

I'm with you windsock but that is old style policing - we must have the high tech solution


False dichotomy. Surely the police should (and I imagine will) be persuing all possible lines of enquiry, whether "old fashioned" or modern and high tech.

[chopper2004]

Unless I am mistkaen a/c resuming in the last hour and half or so....as I saw them.. Must be to do with the success of

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6519109/Gatwick-runway-reopens-flights-resume-amid-drone-chaos-MoD-deploys-specialist-equipment.html

cheers

[outlawuk]

Terrorism?
I can see a dilemma for the authorities. If it is declared a terrorist incident the insurers will refuse to pay, and this incident above all has affected ordinary people - terribly, desperately. It's widely reported that this incident could lead to a 5 year sentence. I disagree. It most likely triggers Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with the definition of terrorism contained in Section 1. The perpetrators thus being eligible for 15 years. But it all hinges on whether the person(s) were doing it for some kind of cause - an eco group activity would certainly meet this criteria. I think Gov should continue attempts to negotiate with the insurance industry to pay, as I hear they were attempting today - but if the insurers refuse then Gov should call this incident out for what it most likely is - an act of terror.

[wiggy]

Drones are still pretty expensive and correspondingly rare, so I think it is highly likely that the item will be tracked down by old fashioned police work.
It does however suggest that drones may need a mandatory identifier, so they squawk their serial number every minute and with every transmission.

Depends on what you mean by rare, according to one source “ excluding drones under 250 grams, the CTA estimates 825,000 drones were sold in the U.S. in 2016.”

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/14/14690576/drone-market-share-growth-charts-dji-forecast

[infrequentflyer789]

Terrorism?
I can see a dilemma for the authorities. If it is declared a terrorist incident the insurers will refuse to pay, and this incident above all has affected ordinary people - terribly, desperately. It's widely reported that this incident could lead to a 5 year sentence. I disagree. It most likely triggers Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with the definition of terrorism contained in Section 1. The perpetrators thus being eligible for 15 years. But it all hinges on whether the person(s) were doing it for some kind of cause - an eco group activity would certainly meet this criteria. I think Gov should continue attempts to negotiate with the insurance industry to pay, as I hear they were attempting today - but if the insurers refuse then Gov should call this incident out for what it most likely is - an act of terror.

It would be interesting to know who paid out for the disruption caused by the "Stansted 15". They have been convicted under Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 for "endangering an aerodrome" - potential sentence, life imprisonment.

[Locking Nut]

My tuppence worth:

Put out a call to all suppliers of drone batteries to report any recent sales of 'multiple' drone batteries.

Yes I know they are rechargeable but I reckon the person operating these drones isn't just waiting to charge up his batteries before embarking his next sortie. He has got a stash of fully charged batteries ready and waiting.

That - and other measures that have been discussed here and elswhere to control the sale of 'drone batteries' are, unfortunately, a waste of time. The battery technology commonly employed in aerial drones is also commonly used in other, land-based applications. If, as suggested, this incident has been perpetrated by a person or persons with the technical knowledge to assemble or modify a drone without any geofencing or other limitations, then that person will likely have the technical expertise to buy a battery pack designed for an alternative application and adapt it for this use.

The problem with all of these proposals for licensing is that they affect the vast majority of users who wouldn't dream of breaking the law - but have no effect on those individuals with the intent and knowledge to carry out an attack of the sort we have seen at LGW.

[PAXboy]

Whilst it is tempting to blame Failing Grayling [as the Labour Party have done 21st Dec] for the local difficulty at Gatwick Airport, it is pointless to do so. Setting an exclusion zone of 100 km would make no difference. Regulations are pointless at preventing, only for prosecuting.

This problem was ALWAYS going to appear and the people who have shown themselves utterly unprepared are the Board of Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Chief Operating Officer Chris Woodroofe. What's the bet they will not be fired and still get their bonus?

[Sunfish]

H Peacock:

Agree you'd need a new engine, but then you've just deleted the drone so well worth the tiny risk v massive disruption factor.

Aircraft windscreens and engines are tested against bird strikes, relatively soft and squishy things where impact is spread over a relatively wide area. The aircraft have NOT been tested against the small point loads perhaps encountered in hitting a drone, let alone a drone perhaps carrying a hard and dense payload.

It is utterly selfish of you to suggest that an airline should provide a USD300 million B777 or equivalent (and a full load of pax) to test how "tiny" the risk actually is. Bare minimum outcome: an aircraft out of service for months as Boeing or Airbus try to devise a repair scheme for a damaged windscreen frame or forward pressure bulkhead.

Better that muppets like you put up with a few hours disruption, unless of course you would like to stump up the money to indemnify the insurers, owners and passengers subjected to your "tiny' risk.

Similar muppets wanted the airlines to fly through Icelandic volcanic ash some years ago. Buy your own plane if you want to do any testing.

[DaveReidUK]

It would be interesting to know who paid out for the disruption caused by the "Stansted 15". They have been convicted under Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 for "endangering an aerodrome" - potential sentence, life imprisonment.

A conviction that will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, so not really a valid parallel, in fact not one at all.

[unworry]

We are all extremely lucky that "drones" have not been utilised by extreme organisations yet e.g. Daesh as the consequences of a clever and highly sophisticated drone attack are unimaginable.

Just as an aside, drones have been used extensively by ISIS to recon enemy positions, provide footage for their propaganda videos and to even drop anti-personnel grenades on unsuspecting troops.

This article by the Low institute -- https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/drones-level-battlefield-extremists -- got me to thinking that the use of drones by anarchists and terrorists is going to escalate. Sadly, it's just a matter of time before a significant incident occurs at an airport or sporting stadium - so I hope that the various authorities are spurred on by this Gatwick nuisance to formulate proper plans to better monitor and mitigate these risks in the future.

[Airbubba]

From the Sussex Police:

Around 10pm today we made 2 arrests in connection with criminal drone activity at Gatwick Airport. Proactive investigations are still on-going: we urge the public to contact us if they believe they have information that can aid us further.Two arrested in drone disruption at GatwickNews (https://news.sussex.police.uk/news) • Dec 22, 2018 01:23 GMTSuperintendent James Collis said “As part of our ongoing investigations into the criminal use of drones which has severely disrupted flights in and out of Gatwick Airport, Sussex Police made two arrests just after 10pm on 21 December.

“Our investigations are still on-going, and our activities at the airport continue to build resilience to detect and mitigate further incursions from drones, by deploying a range of tactics.

“We continue to urge the public, passengers and the wider community around Gatwick to be vigilant and support us by contacting us immediately if they believe they have any information that can help us in bringing those responsible to justice.

“The arrests we have made this evening are a result of our determination to keep the public safe from harm, every line of enquiry will remain open to us until we are confident that we have mitigated further threats to the safety of passengers.

“Anyone with information about the incident or who may have suspicions about the drone operators is asked to report online (https://www.sussex.police.uk/contact/af/contact-us/) or call 101 quoting Operation Trebor. If you see anyone acting suspiciously in the area of the airport, please dial 999 immediately.”

http://twitter.com/sussex_police/status/1076288019630571520

[Dee Vee]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505

Police have yet to disclose the ages and genders of those arrested and where they were apprehended.

strange comment to make, expecting them to announce later a naughty 13 yo boy and girl have been let off with a warning.

[hans brinker]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505



strange comment to make, expecting them to announce later a naughty 13 yo boy and girl have been let off with a warning.

I guess it is more of a reference to the standard "a 32 year old male and his 23 year old female accomplice" kind of reporting.

[msjh]

I used to own a drone, which I hasten to add I flew legally. It made me wonder whether it is not possible to triangulate the signal from the control unit?

[Mark in CA]

I thought the definition of Terrorism involved causing disruption to infrastructure and financial issues.
This pretty much fits the bill IMHO.
I thought that used to be called sabotage. Let's keep the "terror" in terrorism.

[Memetic]

I used to own a drone, which I hasten to add I flew legally. It made me wonder whether it is not possible to triangulate the signal from the control unit?

If one drone was being actively controlled rather than flying a programmed route, you knew the characteristics of the control signal, could find that signal in the noise, there were not multiple controllers taking turns, the controllers were not mobile and probably other factors that a Radio expert could point to, then yes it should be possible

[DaveReidUK]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505
Police have yet to disclose the ages and genders of those arrested and where they were apprehended.

strange comment to make, expecting them to announce later a naughty 13 yo boy and girl have been let off with a warning.

Now being reported as a man and a woman.

[DroneDog]

Caught by nothing more hi-tech than an eyewitness, some guy spotted a drone(s) landing in a field with all its navigation lights on, hard to miss. And watched a guy in a high viz jacket pack it(them away) away and cycle off.
How clever was this guy not to remotely switch off the flashing nav lights, he might have got away with it.

[Maoraigh1]

"he people who have shown themselves utterly unprepared are the Board of Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Chief Operating Officer Chris Woodroofe"
Surely defence is not the responsibility of these civilians. I cannot believe the decision to close was theirs. They are unlikely to have access to security information needed to decide who might be responsible, and their aim.
The Government were unprepared - despite the large spending on defense. And I don't suggest the Opposition would have been different.
(Not and never have been an Aviation Industry person.)

[DaveReidUK]

Caught by nothing more hi-tech than an eyewitness, some guy spotted a drone(s) landing in a field with all its navigation lights on, hard to miss. And watched a guy in a high viz jacket pack it(them away) away and cycle off.
How clever was this guy not to remotely switch off the flashing nav lights, he might have got away with it.

None of the reports I've seen of the mysterious cyclist make any direct link between that sighting and the two arrests. Do you have additional information ?

[DroneDog]

None of the reports I've seen of the mysterious cyclist make any direct link between that sighting and the two arrests. Do you have additional information ?

No, I do not, but if I were a betting man etc. The landing to recover and recharge was always going to be the Achilles heel of this endeavour. Next time the culprit may invest in a number of hacked cheap drones and it's fire and forget in that once the battery goes they let it land and abandon it. Then they launch a new one from a different location.

I suspect DJI will be launching a hunter-killer drone shortly, cheap to buy and if an intruder appears you assign it a target and this thing will intercept and ram it. Will we have stealth drones etc, fascinating to watch drone warfare evolve so to speak.

p.s. I read about the cyclist recovering a drone is suspicious circumstances.

[outlawuk]

For information, terrorism is defined (for the 2000 Act) as follows.
To make it simpler I have transposed subsection 2 into subsection 1 to make it clearer.
There are various ways in which an act can be terrorism, so I have only included the legal elements that could apply in this case.
Terrorism Act 2000
Section 1 - Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action...
d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public...
[AND]
(b)the use or threat is designed to ...intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

On this definition, terrorism covers a much wider ambit of behaviour than many would think.
Charges under this Act also modify the burden of proof in some respects and shift it onto the defendant. Such as: If an article for terror (a drone) is found in a persons home or place they routinely occupy, they have to prove they were Not in possession of it. Prosecution don't have to prove that they were. Major shift in evidential burden.

But having read this thread, the other commentator who mentioned the
Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 has a point.
The offence under Section 1(2)(b)
"...disrupt the services of ...an aerodrome,...
...in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome
or the safety of persons at the aerodrome..."

This carries a penalty of up to Life Imprisonment.
Quick - someone - tell the Daily Mail!
If the authorities ever add up the total losses/costs I imagine they would be vast.
Towards that, the Crown Court could make a criminal bankruptcy order, that would effectively
'wipe-out' the offenders.
This case will almost certainly be called-in (their power) by the Central Criminal Court for trial at the Old Bailey.

[dirk85]

https://youtu.be/QH0V7kp-xg0

[deadheader]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/21/gatwick-airport-drone-chaos-flights-cancelled-delayed-latest/

Detectives were understood to have drawn up a shortlist of potential culprits after the pilot gave vital clues away by audaciously flying the drone right up to the air traffic control tower.

In a move known as "buzzing the tower", it emerged the perpetrator had taunted airport staff by circling the drone around the building and flashing its lights, an industry source told The Daily Telegraph.

A detailed description of the drone, provided by witnesses, meant experts were able to determine the make and model of the machine, which is only available from a handful of locations in the UK.

Police sources suggested two drones had been sighted "in airspace" near the airport shortly after 5pm, with one flying off in the direction of the M23.

The airport authorities quickly launched one of their own drones to track and divert any hostile device and the airport was able to reopen around 40 minutes later.

[costalpilot]

That - and other measures that have been discussed here and elswhere to control the sale of 'drone batteries' are, unfortunately, a waste of time.


do you read much? nowhere does the post suggest ANYTHING about the "sale" of drones.

Methinks you made it up.

fake.

[16024]

Sunfish wrote:

Similar muppets wanted the airlines to fly through Icelandic volcanic ash some years ago. Buy your own plane if you want to do any testing.

And then we all did, and here we all are.
It's a bit much to equate the commitment to avoid letting "the wrong kind of leaves on the line" disrupt the workings of industry and transport to muppetry.

With that attitude you are playing into the hands of any disruptive actors, from terrorists to losers.

Speaking of which, the real mystery, if true, is how a 30-odd year old drone enthusiast ends up with a 23 year old girlfriend...

[Auxtank]

Sunfish wrote:
Speaking of which, the real mystery, if true, is how a 30-odd year old drone enthusiast ends up with a 23 year old girlfriend...

Let's see them before declaring that a mystery.

[DaveReidUK]

you'll see em soon enough

Hmmm. So the attack that paralysed an international airport for more than 24 hours was mounted and controlled by a bloke on a bike, standing by the side of a public road and spotted by an eagle-eyed Sun reader.

[DroneDog]

Stranger things have happened, yes it might be a cover story to hide other intelligence equipment but I think the eyewitness has appeared in the press.

[WHBM]

All this stuff about UK licences and UK dealers is by the by. The two individuals I know who have one both bought them in the USA (where they are cheaper) and just brought it back over in its box in their baggage,

[TWT]

A lot of airport management authorities will now be hurriedly researching drone defence solutions !

And they'll be inundated with sales brochures no doubt. They were not very interested in listening to advice about the threat before this event.

Now, they have no choice since the threat has been very clearly demonstrated. Just fortunate that no-one was injured.

[Auxtank]

According to BBC we have the suspects ages.;
"A 47-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman, from Crawley, were arrested in the town at about 22:00 GMT on Friday."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505

[radiosutch]

Seems the mods didn't like my post, not from the 'in crowd' I 'spose. BUT despite that and the put down from Dave Reid my suggestion is actually what the army is using and more and the company is going to install a test system at EGJB. So there, matey !

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/company-news/skyfence-tm-drone-defence-system-deployed-successfully-in-guernsey-prison/vi-BBR83SC

https://youtu.be/fx_My7FLIZo

[drazziweht]

I used to own a drone, which I hasten to add I flew legally. It made me wonder whether it is not possible to triangulate the signal from the control unit?

It's not as easy as you might expect.
Drones mostly use the 2.4Ghz band which is the same as the Wifi band and hence lots of other signals.

Also most use frequency hopping spread spectrum transmissions which would make it quite hard to track the signal back to the controller.

If the person flying the drone really does not want to be caught they could even send the drone on a pre-programed GPS mission
and turn off the transmitter so nothing to track.

Given that they are quite small (couple of foot), can be flying at say 400' at 20 knots it would be rather hard to hit them with
gunfire from the ground so it's not at all an easy job to stop someone trying to disrupt an airfield like this.

[PAXboy]

PAXboy: "The people who have shown themselves utterly unprepared are the Board of Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Chief Operating Officer Chris Woodroofe"

Surely defence is not the responsibility of these civilians. I cannot believe the decision to close was theirs. They are unlikely to have access to security information needed to decide who might be responsible, and their aim.
The Government were unprepared - despite the large spending on defense. And I don't suggest the Opposition would have been different.
(Not and never have been an Aviation Industry person.)
Indeed - but a drone attack for whatever motive was always going to happen. Gatwick is a private company and have now relied on public funds to get them operational again. They could have had a plan and (with govt approval) forms of defence as discussed above, on site.

But? Nothing. It seemed to take them by surprise and it should not have done.

[Joe_K]

Total ban on sales of these in the UK, and anyone found in possession at airport or or elsewhere face confiscation of the item. It may upset legitimate users but better that than for the inevitable to happen. These things are at least a damn nuisance and at worst downright dangerous in the hands of brainless thick-heads.

Legitimate commercial users will have a PfCO (Permission for Commercial Operations) issued by the CAA as per ANO 2016 and CAP 722, and will have had their remote pilot competence assessed and been made to develop an ops manual as part of the process.
Recreational users on the other hand... legally drones fall under "model aircraft", so you'd have to totally ban sales of all model aircraft. Or come up with a legal definition which distinguishes between "traditional" model aircraft and drones. But then wouldn't you be able to pull pretty much the same stunt with a traditional model aircraft?

[pettinger93]

The contrast between the media reports on the crowds and confusion at Gatwick, and my own experience as SLF to Belfast on the 21st Dec is amazing. Seeing the press reports of chaos, and expecting trouble, we had made provisional alternative travel arrangements (which would have involved a long drive and a ferry) but the Easyjet app kept saying that our booked flight was expected to leave on time. At the airport there were no crowds of frustrated passengers that we could see, apart from the massed bands of television crew outside. Inside all seemed normal, and even a bit less busy than usual. There were only a few delays shown on the departure board and our flight left pretty much on time, but with some 20 or more empty seats. We saw no sign of the previous 48 hrs of cancellations.
Where had the 'thousands' of waiting and disappointed passengers gone? Where did the television crews get their disappointed travellers to interview? Presumably the empty seats were a result of checked-in passengers not realising the flight would actually take off on time?

[OPENDOOR]

The scrotes will need serious protection and a safe house if they are let out on bail.

Unless of course the police have arrested an innocent couple which, given what the man's employer has said, might well be the case.

Gatwick drone: Identities of arrested couple revealed



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/gatwick-drone-identities-arrested-couple-revealed/

[hans brinker]

I guess it is more of a reference to the standard "a 32 year old male and his 23 year old female accomplice" kind of reporting.

Yup:
Police said they had made two arrests late on Friday, a 47-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman who were from the local area

[visibility3miles]

Given that they are quite small (couple of foot), can be flying at say 400' at 20 knots

Then why not put up the kind of nets or fine mesh fencing you see around golf courses to stop errant balls from bashing innocent bystanders?

Or at least have helicopters capable of dragging the equivalent of a trawling style fish net?
--------
I've read that jamming is illegal in UK, and that it would be easy to set up a GPS program for the drones to troll the field without external guidance.

Could jamming halt or incapacitate drones following a GPS program?

[Auxtank]

Unless of course the police have arrested an innocent couple which, given what the man's employer has said, might well be the case.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/gatwick-drone-identities-arrested-couple-revealed/

I suggest it would be meet and right to take a more pragmatic view of this until we have a lot more information than we have at this moment in time.
One remembers when the Telegraph reported the news - not simple conjecture like the tabloids.

[Joe_K]

Could jamming halt or incapacitate drones following a GPS program?
How sophisticated a drone are we talking about? Drones have an "Inertial Measurement Unit" which is what they use to stabilize themselves. If you have one of the bigger aerial work drones which are modular and programmable, you could probably fly the thing without a GPS signal or make it execute a "return to base" mission when signal loss occurs. Also there are proper inertial navigation modules now available for drone use, and last I heard someone is also now offering Visual Inertial Odometry in a drone.

[Fostex]

Proper inertial navigation is hard to do, particularly on a lightweight platform such as a drone. The location or distance calculated by such a system is produced by integrating speed and acceleration over time, each signal having a significant noise component that needs to be filtered out. The net result is that the errors in the system gradually build over time, leading to steady state error. This is why any inertial platform needs periodically aligned.

Modern drones, like the DJI, use optical flow and visual odometry to determine position alongside GPS. Inertial navigation isn't used as such, the accelerometer and gyro sensors being used for the stability control. For optical flow, cameras capture images of the surrounding environment and motion within that image is estimated to detect global and individual motion vectors that can be used to calculate motion and cues about depth of field.

[Navpi]

Yes im a wee bit sceptical as to why they have not been charged YET as well.

Seemed very odd for the boss where the guy works to suggest he was with him whilst the offences took place , something the BBC are now reporting as well.

[Skeleton]

The scrotes will need serious protection and a safe house if they are let out on bail.

No they won't. Any civilised delayed passenger is going to be getting on with their lives once they get to where they want to be, and that won't be searching Crawley for the "scrotes" that delayed them, unless of course you know of a anti drone group who plan to leave the safety of their keyboards and get the "scrotes." (Sarcasm firmly on)

[Airbubba]

Yes im a wee bit sceptical as to why they have not been charged YET as well.

Seemed very odd for the boss where the guy works to suggest he was with him whilst the offences took place , something the BBC are now reporting as well.

Not sure if there is a PPRuNe embargo on the names of the arrested couple but Heavy.com has a good summary of their online presence and initial coverage in the UK media.

[Ancient-Mariner]

The Daily Mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6523821/Did-drone-reviews-Facebook-prompt-police-swoop-big-kid-former-soldier.html?ito=video_player_click (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6523821/Did-drone-reviews-Facebook-prompt-police-swoop-big-kid-former-soldier.html?ito=video_player_click) has some interesting content, from his boss who gives him an alibi to the hi-vis "bicycle man" who was seen appearing to be packing up a drone.

[blista1989]

Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615

[Georg1na]

Any lawyers on here?

When they get the right people and they are found guilty would airlines/airport/passengers be able to file a civil case for damages/loss of earnings and so on?

[groundbum]

looks like the 2 middle aged couple arrested by the Police will have a nice payoff for wrongful arrest. There was no more evidence than "he flies drones and lives nearby" with a cast iron alibi by a boss and 2 co-workers.

G

[topgas]

In some circumstances you can be "unarrested", but I'm not sure if that applies after the time they have been held

[fantom]

Beeb reports a damaged drone recovered near LGW. That has got to be stuffed with clues.

[Simplythebeast]

In some circumstances you can be "unarrested", but I'm not sure if that applies after the time they have been held

The term is de-arrested and yes it would still apply.

[Airbubba]

Well, I hope all those newspapers that published the couple's details and pictures get heavily fined

In the U.S. a security guard named Richard Jewell was identified by name in the news media as a prime suspect in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. He subsequently was cleared and had some success with libel lawsuits against CNN and other outlets. The Jewell case has arguably made the American media a little more cautious about reporting on active criminal investigations in the two decades since.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

[wiggy]

The Jewell case has arguably made the American media a little more cautious about reporting on active criminal investigations in the two decades since.


In the context of the Gatwick event this afternoon one particular newspaper in the U.K. is using the couple’s release as an excuse to splash their names and pictures all over their website yet again.

[ATC Watcher]

In many countries , there is the presumption of innocence and confidentiality of the investigation . Is that not the case in the UK ?
It it is the case then the person from either the police or the justice department that released the names and addresses to the journalists should face strong disciplinary action .
I fell very sorry for this couple, remember all too well when a similar cock-up ended in tragedy when a journalist released the name (and the village where he lived) of the air traffic controller working the aircraft during the Ueberlingen collision.
The father of one of the victims showed up in his house and stabbed him to death in front of his wife and kids. I always wondered how the person that leaked his name and the editor that published it still feel about it today ?

[OPENDOOR]

BBC News;
A damaged drone found close to the airport on Saturday was being forensically examined, the force added.

Presumably after the last "sighting"?

[Joe_K]

As far as I am aware there is only a definition of "serious harm" in the Children's Act and the Defamation Acts

I'll bet the lawyers will claim it was only a "serious inconvenience" - no-one was hurt, injured, nothing was stolen or damaged etc etc
The reporting was that the Crawley couple were "detained on suspicion of disrupting services of civil aviation aerodrome to endanger or likely to endanger safety of operations or persons". Not sure what piece of legislation this is pulled from.

[KelvinD]

I believe the police can, and routinely do, arrest people to further their investigations. Being arrested doesn't automatically mean a charge. So you have a sort of exchange that may go "We would like to interview you at the police station regarding this event". "I don't want to go to the police station"... "Then you are under arrest.... the purpose of your arrest is to enable us to continue our investigation" etc. Sadly, although an arrest doesn't imply any guilt etc, society thrives on "no smoke without fire".
Also, the way the law stands in the UK, anonymity/confidentiality is not a right although this is usually applied in very sensitive cases such as those involving children etc. where identifying a suspect may indirectly lead to identifying the victim.
The alternative to naming persons who have been arrested could lead something like the situation that used to exist in countries like Argentina and Chile with the "disappeareds".

[red9]

DCSI Jason Wigly (sp) , just interviewed by the BBC happened to mention " that there is also a possibility that there were no drones " ?????
edited to say he appeared a bimbling idiot

[flash8]

" that there is also a possibility that there were no drones "
The groundwork is being prepared... from farce to farcical.

[keeprighton1974]

"Sussex Police say there is a 'possibility there was never a drone' despite finding damaged one near runway" (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6524457/Police-continue-quiz-double-glazing-worker-Gatwick-drone.html)


Almost as funny as the 'plastic bag drone' that bothered Heathrow a while ago! :D

[DespairingTraveller]

The reporting was that the Crawley couple were "detained on suspicion of disrupting services of civil aviation aerodrome to endanger or likely to endanger safety of operations or persons". Not sure what piece of legislation this is pulled from.

Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, S1(2)(b) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/31)

[First.officer]

So, the possibility there was never a drone? as in never a possibility in the claim of one appearing whenever it was supposedly last seen? or for the whole period LGW was on lock-down? that cannot be the case surely....that reporting must be a mistake or confusion of some kind?.

[Asturias56]

This is the UK in late 2018 - anything can happen................ one thing for sure - if they DO arrest anyone else DCSI Jason Wigly will be the FIRST person the defence call...................

lack of photo coverage from the police (who normally leak like a sieve) maybe indicates that it's going to be an interesting investigation :rolleyes:

[KelvinD]

I can think of one question Sussex police should be asked:
In the early stages of this saga, the police said that when the drone appeared and a police helicopter was put up, the drone would vanish. They seemed pretty confident at that time that a drone existed and was visiting Gatwick. And now not so confident? Hmm.

[davidjpowell]

"Sussex Police say there is a 'possibility there was never a drone' despite finding damaged one near runway" (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6524457/Police-continue-quiz-double-glazing-worker-Gatwick-drone.html)


Almost as funny as the 'plastic bag drone' that bothered Heathrow a while ago! :D
They actually say
He said there was "always a possibility" the reported sightings of drones were mistaken, ​​​​However, he said officers were working on a range of information from members of the public, police officers and staff working at Gatwick who had reported seeing a drone.

[Joe_K]

Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, S1(2)(b) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/31)

Thanks. Hefty tariff: "A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life." Has there ever been a conviction under this?

[possibleconsequences]

Given the enormous pressure to find the culprit( assuming it wasn’t all false sightings and hysteria) then it seems perfectly reasonable for the police to question someone if there’s suspicion it could be them. It doesn’t have to be the police who leaked their names either- any neighbour, acquaintance etc can gossip on social media and the press pick that up in no time - it’s an awful consequence of the speed of communication and the lack of any self control in some people posting whatever they hear/see/think without actually knowing facts. In the past it was just gossip over the garden fence or down the pub- now it’s instantly spread to millions.

[Ivor_Bigunn]

According to both the BBC News Channel and the BBC News Webpage, there are no actual photos or videos of a drone over Gatwick Airport!!

a) This would make the determination of the type of drone exceedingly difficult.

b) It does raise the possibility that this is some kind of heightened sensitivity causing repeat mis-reporting.

[Ivor_Bigunn]

The Guardian is also reporting:

​​​​​​Confusion deepened as a senior police officer in the case said it was “always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place”. DCS Jason Tingley added that although the damaged drone was a significant line of inquiry, wet weather could have washed away evidence. He also noted that there were no pictures or video of the drone incursions into the airspace around Gatwick despite 67 sightings. He said there was “no available footage and [officers] are relying on witness accounts”.

[currawong]

I would suggest that the information supplied by crews and ATC would be on the whole reliable, being somewhat skilled at identifying what is around them and possessing documented levels of eyesight.

[Asturias56]

Not necessarily - it's winter there - dark early (15:30 Zulu was lights on), and it's been a foul week for weather around LGW - I was there (or nearby) at the time - low cloud, showers, very poor light levels all day . There are birds, blowing trash bags, leaves in the air. It's very very hard to judge distances

Hard enough to spot a drone in a clear blue sky - and once one person says "is that a drone?" then you've got everyone pre-programmed to "see" one

I suspect that someone MAY have been flying drones around the area - one of the local guys told me there are a couple of oil well sites they've been protesting about a few kms away from LGW and the protesters use drones to spy on the oil works - but they may have been well outside the airfield boundary.

[wiggy]

Hard enough to spot a drone in a clear blue sky - and once one person says "is that a drone?" then you've got everyone pre-programmed to "see" one..

That was indeed mentioned here as a theory here earlier today....

We don’t know (yet) if any of the reported observations were made by ATC and pilots.
There don’t appear to be any reports of confirmed sightings made by those equipped with binoculars/telescopes/image enhancement equipment.
There have been instances in the past of a flawed/mistaken observation of something being seen in the sky being published in a manner that has led to a cascade of “ copy cat” observations from other eyewitnesses.

I’d suggest until the authorities come up with something more concrete it is as valid a theory as to the chain of events at LGW as any other.

[Steve N]

FPV UK offer services of Aerial SWAT team (https://www.fpvuk.org/fpv-uk-aerial-swat-team/)

[Sepp]

In many countries , there is the presumption of innocence and confidentiality of the investigation . Is that not the case in the UK ?
It it is the case then the person from either the police or the justice department that released the names and addresses to the journalists should face strong disciplinary action .
I fell very sorry for this couple, remember all too well when a similar cock-up ended in tragedy when a journalist released the name (and the village where he lived) of the air traffic controller working the aircraft during the Ueberlingen collision.
The father of one of the victims showed up in his house and stabbed him to death in front of his wife and kids. I always wondered how the person that leaked his name and the editor that published it still feel about it today ?

Whilst there is technically a presumption of innocence in Law, it is for all practical purposes an illusion. The great unwashed conflate investigation with guilt and the media are far more concerned with their right to publish the first thing that comes into their heads than with publishing facts - suggest that they hold back on pillorying some individual and they'll scream "censorship" at you. You'd've thought they might have learned a thing or two from how they treated Cliff Richard but apparently there really is no discenable thought process involved with journalism.

[peterperfect]

Walking the North Cornwall coast path not too long ago, saw a guy on a headland who was clearly operating a drone about 400 metres ahead of us, kept eyes on it for ages. Walked onwards to pass him 5 mins later....... turns out he was photographing a Peregrine Falcon hovering and repositioning itself along the cliffs in darting manoeuvres. In fact it might have been 800m ahead or 300m when first spotted. Ranging is not easy without a surface reference point. Just saying.

[Asturias56]

especially when most of us have no idea of how big (or small) the things are.......

[DespairingTraveller]

Thanks. Hefty tariff: "A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life." Has there ever been a conviction under this?It was recently used to prosecute the "Stansted 15" - the anti-deportation protesters who surrounded an aircraft at Stansted. Its use in that case has attracted a lot of criticism in some quarters. The "15" were convicted and sentencing is expected in February.

[KelvinD]

Re "Was a drone spotted or not" arguments, this may be a good time to repost something I posted back in October:
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)
The confusion on that day was in excellent visibility, good sunshine etc.

[Ian W]

Re "Was a drone spotted or not" arguments, this may be a good time to repost something I posted back in October:

The confusion on that day was in excellent visibility, good sunshine etc.

And had it been a falcon or similar hawk that would explain the difficulty of triangulation on its radio transmissions :rolleyes: and the failure of the associated tracking systems. It would also explain sporadic return flights. Then the night observations could be blue-on-blue mis-idents in the poorly controlled 'crime scene' or straight forward suggestibility.

Overall a lack of professionalism in response - that led to considerable upheaval to thousands of the airport customer pax and to their user airlines.

[langleybaston]

Here we have a senior police officer saying the unsayable truth, and a junta of government ministers calling it miscommunication.
Given the ministers' competence in other matters, I think I will go with the officer.

It is truly amazing that, after the first "sighting" and "chaos", when everyone within 10KM of Gatwick with a decent lens on a good camera [and every smartphone junky ] was looking for a scoop, there are no photos. Airports are often home to long lenses poking skywards.

The policeman may well be right.

[James7]

With no planes flying, the hawks and kestrels would have thought it was open season, plenty of prey on airfields. Genaral Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, sums it up “ a national embarrassment of near biblical proportions “. - from the DM.

[langleybaston]

I also find the emphasis on "sightings" and "witness statements" strange.
With the military Gizmos rushed very slowly into position, and the confidence that "drone" or "drones" had been removed as a threat, one would imagine record, radar, electronic or visual would be available.

If so, judging from his unrehearsed remarks, the police officer fronting the investigation had not been told of this, or he would not have pleaded Occam's Razor.

I smell a rat or rats.

[twb3]

This incident comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_clown_sightings

[First.officer]

The whole thing seems somewhat contrived, admittedly easy to say with hindsight. If i was a conspiracy-minded person, you could almost believe that it (event and subsequent airport closure) was used as a springboard to maybe allow for a new bill to be pushed through parliament that may have previously stalled, or received adverse reaction? or perhaps to allow rapid deployment of new equipment at all UK airports that is utilised to detect such errant drones as was purported to have been the case (press reports suggest 'yes' here). Of course, such equipment may have further monitoring capabilities as well as that applicable to drones?. It is of course beneficial to have such monitoring (to identify errant drone activity for one) for safety and security, but it all seems a little too convenient and maybe some other less publicised 'activity possibilities' are introduced alongside the main purpose as well?. You have to wonder what (if any) other benefits are realised at a less obvious level. Maybe none of course. And there has been recent press speculation of increased threat levels again to aviation from new ISIS groups, so again anything to combat perceived or actual threats and protect the interests of all involved, can only be good. Time may tell i suppose, but i doubt it. And to treat the couple arrested like they did - sacrificial lambs on the alter of public desire for a lynching? whatever, that was very badly handled and watching and reading the press its all to easy to see where that is now likely headed with regard to compensatory considerations - and arguably fair too given the nature of it all.

[Ian W]

The whole thing seems somewhat contrived, admittedly easy to say with hindsight. If i was a conspiracy-minded person, you could almost believe that it (event and subsequent airport closure) was used as a springboard to maybe allow for a new bill to be pushed through parliament that may have previously stalled, or received adverse reaction? or perhaps to allow rapid deployment of new equipment at all UK airports that is utilised to detect such errant drones as was purported to have been the case (press reports suggest 'yes' here). Of course, such equipment may have further monitoring capabilities as well as that applicable to drones?. It is of course beneficial to have such monitoring (to identify errant drone activity for one) for safety and security, but it all seems a little too convenient and maybe some other less publicised 'activity possibilities' are introduced alongside the main purpose as well?. You have to wonder what (if any) other benefits are realised at a less obvious level. Maybe none of course. And there has been recent press speculation of increased threat levels again to aviation from new ISIS groups, so again anything to combat perceived or actual threats and protect the interests of all involved, can only be good. Time may tell i suppose, but i doubt it. And to treat the couple arrested like they did - sacrificial lambs on the alter of public desire for a lynching? whatever, that was very badly handled and watching and reading the press its all to easy to see where that is now likely headed with regard to compensatory considerations - and arguably fair too given the nature of it all.

To yet again quote 'Hanlon's Razor': "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Unfortunately, we have the heavy handed imposition of 'safety' rules and 'legal powers' based on no proven sighting of a small UAS. This is because while there is absolutely no available system for airport staff to observe and identify 'drones' (small UAS) there are a plethora of actions that they are required to take for safety. There is also an immediate demand for legal response. So a sparrow hawk can cause an airport shutdown.

What is needed is a primary radar system that is processed perhaps by some kind of AI that would identify and alert to small aircraft. The current direction of ATC is to move to cooperative 'surveillance' where aircraft report their position with SSR or ADS-B and primary radar is being effectively phased out. Strangely all the emergent UAS Traffic Management (UTM) systems (SESAR speak U-Space) are also cooperative so would be of no assistance whatsoever in a Gatwick type incident. A new (or perhaps a real) systems analysis needs to be carried out to identify the safety requirements of airspace control with uncooperative aircraft from small model size up mixed in with large passenger carrying aircraft.
Unfortunately, geek software and communications engineers with little knowledge of (or care about) air traffic management are the ones who 'know just what is needed for drone management' without even trivial attempts at formal systems and safety analysis and no ideal of a validated scalable concept of operations for separation management from other 'drones' and manned aircraft.

Expect to see more 'Gatwicks' - intentional, unintentional and imaginary.

[El Bunto]

Formal system analysis only follows when viable technical measures have been identified. People chipping-in with 'solutions' aren't seriously proposing an implementation, they're at the ideation stage. Calm down.

Modern airport surface radar implementations can already identify and track unidentified airborne objects with resolution <= 5cm. They certainly aren't being phased-out, precisely because they provide surveillance of non-cooperative objects.

[GWYN]

F/O We may be conspiracy theorists, but I think you're on the money.

[wiggy]

I’m really not at all convinced about any premeditated conspiracy here, whether related to getting Brexit off the front page for a day or two, UAV legislation, or anything else...currently there seems to be a lot of evidence that the national powers that be couldn’t organise a drinking event in a brewing establishment, so I agree what happened at LGW is much more likely to be explained by Hanlon’s Razor....

However that said is there not a rule in politics that you should never let a crisis go to waste?

[Ian W]

Formal system analysis only follows when viable technical measures have been identified. People chipping-in with 'solutions' aren't seriously proposing an implementation, they're at the ideation stage. Calm down.

Modern airport surface radar implementations can already identify and track unidentified airborne objects with resolution <= 5cm. They certainly aren't being phased-out, precisely because they provide surveillance of non-cooperative objects.

You need to read about UTM and U-space These are at implementation stage in the US and Europe respectively - without any systems analysis.

[ATC Watcher]

I think you are missing one point : primary radars, UTM, ATC or Airports authorities are not going to prevent this from happening .
Let me explain briefly : There are basically 3 was to operate civil Drones ; those operated commercially , those by hobbyists and those used for criminal intent.
The commercially operated ones are asking for regulation and UTM as they do not want to lose their vehicles and what they carry ( cameras, detection or cargo , e.g amazon ) in a collision It is to them that we are developing UTM .
The hobbyists, are currently being contained by both education and regulation ( e.g. 400 ft/ 1 km away ) 99.9% will stay away from airports as they do not want to lose their equipment either.
The last group is the one we are talking about here . For those regulations or detection / UTM will not refrain them ( even if detected, if launched from near a airport fence, it can reach their goal/target in a few dozen seconds ). It is not the task of Airports authorities or ATC to take care of criminal activity , this is the task of the police and/or the armed forces..
In other words, both detection and correction of drone activity inside airports areas is a State security forces issue , not an ATC or an Airport operator issue.
.

[Ian W]

I think you are missing one point : primary radars, UTM, ATC or Airports authorities are not going to prevent this from happening .
Let me explain briefly : There are basically 3 was to operate civil Drones ; those operated commercially , those by hobbyists and those used for criminal intent.
The commercially operated ones are asking for regulation and UTM as they do not want to lose their vehicles and what they carry ( cameras, detection or cargo , e.g amazon ) in a collision It is to them that we are developing UTM .
The hobbyists, are currently being contained by both education and regulation ( e.g. 400 ft/ 1 km away ) 99.9% will stay away from airports as they do not want to lose their equipment either.
The last group is the one we are talking about here . For those regulations or detection / UTM will not refrain them ( even if detected, if launched from near a airport fence, it can reach their goal/target in a few dozen seconds ). It is not the task of Airports authorities or ATC to take care of criminal activity , this is the task of the police and/or the armed forces..
In other words, both detection and correction of drone activity inside airports areas is a State security forces issue , not an ATC or an Airport operator issue.
.

You obviously have not worked in airspace where unregulated flights IFR,, GAT, OAT and VFR all coexist. If you are happy as a controller to pretend that if an aircraft isn't working with me then I can ignore it - you are right. And there are many such controllers.

If you are someone that is concerned for air safety then you need to be able to see all the aircraft operating in your airspace and take appropriate control action. Current systems are not set up for that. Manned aircraft controllers can see one set of aircraft, UTM/U-Space systems can see another set, VFR aircraft are yet another set - there are actually more; such as small UAS that operate up to 20,000ft and higher, but you can happily live inside your roseate tunnel vision only seeing what you want to see. Others have to be concerned for flight safety.

If you are concerned for flight safety, then just seeing cooperative aircraft for one particular system is dangerous and a significant flight safety risk.

[ATC Watcher]

Ian W, you need to take a deep breath and a cold beer ( as we say in my country when someone gets exited over nothing) Read again my post , I am not talking about mixed mode operations or what ATC should see or not see, but about the fact that criminal activities are not the domain of ATC or airports and are not for us to solve.
Last : you are assuming a lot of things, and a bit quick in passing judgement about people you have not met. Not too much my cup of tea, but because it's Christmas, I forgive you..

[Mark in CA]

The fact that Gatwick is one of the most heavily surveilled strips of land in England, combined with an absence of video of any drone, left the lead investigator, Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley, questioning whether drones were in fact involved at all.


1 Broken Drone, No Video, 2 Suspects Released: Gatwick Episode Doesn’t Add Up (https://nyti.ms/2RdY7Cr)

[Onceapilot]

Unfortunately, it does add up-to a complete farce!
"It's behind you! No it isn't-Yes it is!"....

OAP

[OPENDOOR]

ADS-B transponders are now available for even the smallest UAV/Drones and will be mandatory in controlled airspace in the USA in 2020. Any UAV appearing on primary radar, or any other detection system, and not so equipped will be immediately identified as a potential threat and targeted appropriately. Perhaps the UK should pass similar legislation and simply make it an offence to own or operate a drone without ADS B? The cost to the operator is low and it would make prosecution for illegal use much more clear cut.
Why is the FAA transitioning away from radar and towards ADS-B technology?


ADS-B is an environmentally friendly technology that enhances safety and efficiency, and directly benefits pilots, controllers, airports, airlines, and the public. It forms the foundation for NextGen by moving from ground radar and navigational aids to precise tracking using satellite signals.

With ADS-B, pilots for the first time see what controllers see: displays showing other aircraft in the sky. Cockpit displays also pinpoint hazardous weather and terrain, and give pilots important flight information, such as temporary flight restrictions.

ADS-B reduces the risk of runway incursions with cockpit and controller displays that show the location of aircraft and equipped ground vehicles on airport surfaces – even at night or during heavy rainfall. ADS-B applications being developed now will give pilots indications or alerts of potential collisions.

ADS-B also provides greater coverage since ground stations are so much easier to place than radar. Remote areas without radar coverage, like the Gulf of Mexico and parts of Alaska, now have surveillance with ADS-B.

Relying on satellites instead of ground navigational aids also means aircraft will be able to fly more directly from Point A to B, saving time and money, and reducing fuel burn and emissions.

The improved accuracy, integrity and reliability of satellite signals over radar means controllers eventually will be able to safely reduce the minimum separation distance between aircraft and increase capacity in the nation's skies.


For those interested; https://uavionix.com/products/ping2020/

[KelvinD]

The police officer didn't state there may not have been a drone at all. During a press conference, a single reporter asked if that could be a possibility and he replied with something along the lines of "it is possible". The police later clarified that there had been 67 sightings in total. Another mistake the NYT have made is (I suspect) to have gathered their info from some of the crap press we have here in the UK. With regard to the "No videos etc"; refer to the thread on this forum: https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/616498-gatwick-drone-s-14.html. Go to post #270. From there, you can watch a video.

[Ian W]

ADS-B transponders are now available for even the smallest UAV/Drones and will be mandatory in controlled airspace in the USA in 2020. Any UAV appearing on primary radar, or any other detection system, and not so equipped will be immediately identified as a potential threat and targeted appropriately. Perhaps the UK should pass similar legislation and simply make it an offence to own or operate a drone without ADS B? The cost to the operator is low and it would make prosecution for illegal use much more clear cut.


For those interested; https://uavionix.com/products/ping2020/

ADS-B frequency is already saturated adding more than a million sUAS transponders will make the system useless for all users. And like legislation, geofencing, registration etc etc, will only apply to those who want to be cooperative, There are no primary radars currently in use that will identify a 'drone' - it would require all airports to re-equip purely for defense against malicious drones.

[Steve N]

Not forgetting EASA in it's wisdom decided a ADS-B UAT infrastructure in Europe would not be needed. Using 1090Mhz requires a lot of power.

[Asturias56]

Kelvin

Given the way politicians and the police normally leak data and info tot the press in the UK I'd have expected a load of film, names, graphics etc to be leaked - so far one picture possibly of a drone at LGW.........

And no-one has claimed responsibility - if it was "deliberate" to quote the Transport Ministers why hasn't someone claimed it???

[Icarus2001]

At $2000 each not really a "solution" to gain widespread popularity. What percentage of "drones" operate in CTR/CTA? Here in Australia that is not permitted generally.

[red9]

The police officer didn't state there may not have been a drone at all. During a press conference, a single reporter asked if that could be a possibility and he replied with something along the lines of "it is possible". The police later clarified that there had been 67 sightings in total. Another mistake the NYT have made is (I suspect) to have gathered their info from some of the crap press we have here in the UK. With regard to the "No videos etc"; refer to the thread on this forum: https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/616498-gatwick-drone-s-14.html. Go to post #270. From there, you can watch a video.

Sorry Kelvin , but DCI Wigly did say to camera " we are including investigating the possibility of there never being any drones"..........

[A320ECAM]

I have yet to see any concrete evidence to suggest that there was even a drone! Even in this day and age there should be far more videos and photographs especially at LGW where many gates and walkways cover a wide view of the airport.

Was this blown way out of proportion by closing the airport for such a long time? Of course it was!

I have a strong feeling that ground staff confused a bird with a drone on several occasions after the initial "wrong" drone report came through! The media obviously didn't help with their usual style of reporting. This media added an external pressure to LGW management and they felt they had to be seen to respond by making such a horrendous decision in closing the airport!

[Boeing 7E7]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/gatwick-drones-ufo-spotters-think-13775521

Ooh!

[Asturias56]

It is salutary to read the first few posts on this thread dating from 2014........................... everything we see today was forecast then

[Photonic]

One of the many odd things about this event is that I don't recall anyone mentioning noise from the drone. An airport is a very noisy place air-side, but it might have been relatively quiet during the shutdown period.

I've had one drone encounter: A small one flew directly over my house and parked, maybe around 400 feet up. It was probably filming a town parade happening a block away in our neighborhood. Even with the noise of the marching bands warming up, I heard the drone before I saw it, and knew to look up in the sky.

These things are not quiet, especially any of the larger pro video or agricultural models. Even the smaller ones (like the one over my house) make enough noise to attract attention. But as far as I know, these "sightings" were all visual. Did anyone mention hearing anything?

[A320ECAM]

One of the many odd things about this event is that I don't recall anyone mentioning noise from the drone. An airport is a very noisy place air-side, but it might have been relatively quiet during the shutdown period.

I've had one drone encounter: A small one flew directly over my house and parked, maybe around 400 feet up. It was probably filming a town parade happening a block away in our neighborhood. Even with the noise of the marching bands warming up, I heard the drone before I saw it, and knew to look up in the sky.

These things are not quiet, especially any of the larger pro video or agricultural models. Even the smaller ones (like the one over my house) make enough noise to attract attention. But as far as I know, these "sightings" were all visual. Did anyone mention hearing anything?

In short, no. Because no such drone existed. And now airlines do not need to pay compensation as per EU Regulations because the reason for the delays and cancellations cannot be determined.

[Checklist Charlie]

It could be said that the reason for the delays and cancellations was the reaction to a report!.
Whether that report was correct, truthful, accurate or made for some ulterior reason matters not.
I wonder if there will be any public disclosure of the results of any 'enquiries' undertaken, if so they will be interesting to say the least.

CC

[currawong]

A crime not solved within a news cycle does not a conspiracy make...

[BAengineer]

I have yet to see any concrete evidence to suggest that there was even a drone! Even in this day and age there should be far more videos and photographs especially at LGW where many gates and walkways cover a wide view of the airport.


There were several videos showing it flying around - I cannot post links but if you do a search for 'daily mail drone video' its the first vid in the results

[red9]

There were several videos showing it flying around - I cannot post links but if you do a search for 'daily mail drone video' its the first vid in the results

Police drone it would appear......

[Eutychus]

Is it too much into tinfoil hat territory to speculate on a possible connection to the sale of a majority stake in the airport? Link (https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-27/vinci-airports-to-acquire-majority-stake-in-gatwick/)
There will surely have been an effect on the airport's financials.

[oggers]

A total farce.

[7of9]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/gatwick-drone-sightings-may-have-been-of-police-equipment-chief-constable-admits/ar-BBRyLdO?ocid=spartandhp

[langleybaston]

Sussex top cop:

However, he admitted that police drones launched to investigate could have caused "some level of confusion".

Mr York revealed two drones found by police near the airport had now been ruled out of causing the disruption, which saw flights cancelled or diverted.

Despite searches of 26 potential sites, he said: "I don't think we have found the drone responsible."

[weemonkey]

Were there actually any in the first place?

[keeprighton1974]

Sussex top cop:

police drones launched to investigate could have caused "some level of confusion".



Perhaps police drones should be banned before somebody gets hurt...?

[Carbon Bootprint]

This country resembles a lunatic asylum run by a skeleton staff.

A collective death-wish has taken hold of what was once a great nation. Mercy killing seems to be in order .............. they shoot horses, don't they?
It sometimes seems that way, yes. How do you propose to fix it?

[KelvinD]

However, he admitted that police drones launched to investigate could have caused "some level of confusion".
No he didn't.
Were there actually any in the first place?
Something like 150 sightings were reported, including 4 from people on the airport roof and these 4 were confirmed by 2 police officers close to the runway.
But, don't just take my word for any of the above. Listen to the interview on Raio4's Today programme, 29th Dec on BBS Sounds:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001t04
Interview begins at 1:10:10

[langleybaston]

No he didn't.

Something like 150 sightings were reported, including 4 from people on the airport roof and these 4 were confirmed by 2 police officers close to the runway.
But, don't just take my word for any of the above. Listen to the interview on Raio4's Today programme, 29th Dec on BBS Sounds:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001t04
Interview begins at 1:10:10

Thank you. My scepticism is not absolute, but nevertheless sustainable for the following reasons:

"they would say that wouldn't they" ....... powerful vested interests desperate to justify what may be over-reaction to a sighting of .....

........... what and where exactly? To be sure of "over the airfield" we need triangulation at one time, otherwise size/range make observation difficult.

Not a scrap of film in 2018? This beggars belief, surely? Over and beyond the professionals on duty, over and beyond the smartfone public, the Media attended a. s. a .p? Not a sausage.

I am willing to be convinced by evidence, not eyewitnesses, who may well have been influenced [after the first "sighting"] by confirmation bias.

No physical evidence either.

My only qualification of relevance to the matter is having served on airfields [weather observer and forecaster] on and off for 40 years, including launching many a Met. balloon. I served at Gatwick too.

[ATC Watcher]

There is a well known and studied phenomena, but not yet fully understood, that shows many eye witnesses reporting separately "facts" that are proven later to be completely fabricated. How this symbiosis works between different people in different locations remains a mystery.
The best example in aviation is the TWA 747 explosion near NY in 1996 . While the cause has been later well established ( explosion of central tank due faulty pump), may independent witnesses reported seeing a missile was launched. .

from wikipedia :
Although there were considerable discrepancies between different accounts, most witnesses to the accident had seen a "streak of light" that was unanimously described as ascending, moving to a point where a large fireball appeared, with several witnesses reporting that the fireball split in two as it descended toward the water.[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-Final_Report-1)There was intense public interest in these witness reports and much speculation that the reported streak of light was a missile that had struck TWA 800, causing the airplane to explode.[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800#cite_note-Final_Report-1) These witness accounts were a major reason for the initiation and duration of the FBI's criminal investigation.
The official NTSB report explains this in more details for those interested.

[El Grifo]

I recall vividly that an esteemed, long time member of Pprune, heavily involved in the aviation industry, posting a claim and possibly a clear photograph of the said trail here on Pprune. The photograph may have been sent as a PM.
The image was shot from his home or holiday home located in the area !
El Grifo

[Prangster]

Here they come, the lame brained copy cats. BBC reports a man hauled down from the Severn Bridge for flying a drone from one of the towers. Nut loose and fancy free.

[Mark in CA]

​Heathrow and Gatwick confirmed that they’ve spent millions to acquire and install (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/03/heathrow-and-gatwick-millions-anti-drone-technology) their own “military-grade anti-drone apparatus,” while Scotland’s Edinburgh Airport has also indicated (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46765553) that it’s taking its own precautions with foot patrols and expand some no-fly zones surrounding the facility. ​​​​​​

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/5/18169215/london-heathrow-gatwick-airports-anti-drone-defense-systems

[alexgreyhead]

So, has anybody given an indication of how these systems work? Their level of reliability in doing so? And are they effective against drones which are operating on a pre-programmed GPS-based route?

To the latter point, the limited discussion from other internet commentators* is that it's neither likely nor wise to try and interfere with GPS signals to jam drones in the vicinity of airports for the entirely reasonable reason that there would be unintended consequences for legitimate traffic.

* Naturally I have no idea how qualified they are to comment...

I'm concerned that the public proclamations of having drone defenses at airports is at least partly using the same psychology that TV license detector vans employ - i.e. a significant amount of bluff and bluster...

/Alex

[TCAS FAN]

Hopefully someone has submitted a Safety Case to the CAA and secured acceptance for them to sanction its use at each EASA certified aerodrome?

[ex-Dispatcher]

So, has anybody given an indication of how these systems work? Their level of reliability in doing so? And are they effective against drones which are operating on a pre-programmed GPS-based route?

To the latter point, the limited discussion from other internet commentators* is that it's neither likely nor wise to try and interfere with GPS signals to jam drones in the vicinity of airports for the entirely reasonable reason that there would be unintended consequences for legitimate traffic.

* Naturally I have no idea how qualified they are to comment...

I'm concerned that the public proclamations of having drone defenses at airports is at least partly using the same psychology that TV license detector vans employ - i.e. a significant amount of bluff and bluster...

/Alex

From my perspective - GNSS Security Technologist these days, ex aircraft dispatcher once upon a time, you raise some good points. I worry about the idea of pointing a GPS jammer towards a moving drone with no real idea of how jamming GPS is likely to affect the drone (if at all), no idea of whether GPS jamming will affect others nearby, (directing RF isn't as easy as pointing a laser beam, the cone of RF energy is likely to be much larger), or how those nearby users are using GPS - any other safety critical systems being used for precise time or positioning applications?
In a webinar on GPS jamming I participated in 3 years ago, I shared the platform with a US Sheriff who used drones - we were asked about deploying GPS jammers to incapacitate drones - the Sheriff said " why would I tackle one risk by adding several others?" - he meant the collateral caused by interfering with GPS signals and agreed with me that it was a plain bad idea. Of course the other idea that goes around is the idea of spoofing GPS signals - this is what some people think happened to the US drone brought down in Iran - and the University of Texas have also demonstrated how to "take over" a GPS equipped drone using spoofing. But you really need the drone to be hovering in a stationary position for this to work, again, you are going to affect other nearby systems (probably) and there is absolutely no guarantee that the drone will be affected at all.

For me personally, the idea of someone using a powerful GNSS jammer or spoofer gun, moving it around erratically to try and bring down a moving drone in the vicinity of other legitimate systems that depend critically on GPS position or timing data just doesn't sound like a sensible idea unless the potential consequences are known - I spend a lot of my time helping people test systems and devices in order to make them more robust against real-world jamming and spoofing events - we really don't want to be deploying jammers or spoofers deliberately without a full risk assessment being carried out (perhaps this could be part of obtaining an exemption to use one of these devices near an airport?)
Using Geo-fencing is also often talked about as being a potential solution, this means that whilst GPS is being used by a drone, it is prohibited in flying in restricted areas. Another nice idea except for - what are the defined restricted areas, can they be updated - and there are also devices for some of the drones with these geo-fenced systems that can be programmed to apply a set of co-ordinate offsets - this is very easy to do - and the devices are cleverly marketed as being for users who need to film or carry out ostensible activities in a geo-fenced area...

I can't post a link yet but for those of you interested in a good assessment of drone defences there was an excellent presentation at DEFCON 25 which is well worth watching - if you google "DEFCON 25 game of drones" you'll find it. If anyone finds it useful, please feel free to add the link

[skydler]

So, has anybody given an indication of how these systems work? Their level of reliability in doing so? And are they effective against drones which are operating on a pre-programmed GPS-based route?


1) radar locates the drone within a 6 mile radius
2) optical rangefinder tracks it
3) high power laser beam melts and disables it

here it is in a test:

zgFCjDd0O6I

The Army didn't buy the laser beam option though, their model just sends a barrage of radio signals to jam the drone which I'm unsure how effective it would be if it's operating on pre-programmed flightpath.

[MATELO]

The Army didn't buy the laser beam option though, their model just sends a barrage of radio signals to jam the drone which I'm unsure how effective it would be if it's operating on pre-programmed flightpath.

Any laser floating around an airport could be dangerous.

[MichaelKPIT]

Brilliant! High power l@ser beams near aircraft! What could possibly go wrong?!

[Tech Guy]

I would have thought it more likely they purchased the "detection & tracking" part, but not the active counter measures.
However, it has to be "big upped" for the tabloids.

[Ian W]

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/5/18169215/london-heathrow-gatwick-airports-anti-drone-defense-systems

Also effective against sparrow hawks :rolleyes:

[alexgreyhead]

BBC breaking news reporting at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713

(Apologies if this should be in the existing drone thread or isn't news as such.)

[Richard Taylor]

Well LHR might get the chance to use the technology, flights suspended due to 'drone sighting'.

[BONES_]

All departures have been halted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713

seriously.... wtf....

[alexgreyhead]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713


Ta muchly :) Original post updated accordingly.

[Flying Wild]

But arrivals continue...?

[Denti]

Well, anyone who wants some quiet time living on the departure or arrival path now has a very easy way to do that. Simply home build your own multicopter/flying wing and program a flightpath close to the airport. Not traceable since not actually radio controlled, and GPS is not necessary either, there is always GLONASS and Galileo, not to mention Baidu. Or simply terrain recognition, a childs play with todays system, a simply raspy can do that.

[Flying Wild]

I was wondering this. Just a BBC muck up or is there still arrivals?
Still plenty on approach at 1800.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1273x646/screenshot_2019_01_08_at_18_00_24_ec551ca6a97b642622c65feb30 7dd78ecd7141d4.png

[DaveReidUK]

Still plenty on approach at 1800.

But few, if any, departures since 17:15 (50 minutes ago)

[Hotel Tango]

Which may suggest the drone was sighted west of the airport!

[scr1]

If all Dep stopped then how long till they run out of stands??

[theexpandingman]

Aegean to Athens just departed - 18:10

[doublesix]

FR appears to show departures resumed off 28R

[BONES_]

Looks like departures have been resumed :ok:

[Flying Wild]

FR appears to show departures resumed off 28R

I think you mean 27R...:rolleyes:

[sikeano]

I think you mean 27R...:rolleyes:
😀

well fingers crossed all flights start departing

[ex-EGLL]

I think you mean 27R...:rolleyes:
Nah....... it'll always be 28R!!

[DaveReidUK]

Which may suggest the drone was sighted west of the airport!

Previous drone sightings at LHR (from the air, so classed as airproxes) have involved inbounds on 09L, so in the same area as the 27R departure flightpath.

[Airbubba]

The sighting report tweet from the Metropolitan Police:



https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1265x667/lhr_drone_9a6abb1e77a45aa94d21a8710eea74c66a19ceea.jpg

[alexgreyhead]

I think you mean 27R...:rolleyes:

Nobody ever claimed that flying was an exact science... ;)

[old,not bold]

In a demonstration that nothing is really new, here's a post by Capot from 2016 in R&N, on the subject of drones. I well remember the fury of most posters back in 2014 when Capot suggested that drones were a threat.

Returning to the thread, here's what I wrote in R&N in November 2014

Quote:
I've been in the air transport industry since 1969, in a number of different sectors, eg airline management, airport management and engineering, working in a number of different countries, eg UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan, USA, Israel (Gaza), Tunisia, Algeria, Greece and the Philippines. Before that I was in the military for 10 years, including the final 3 years working as an Intelligence officer in the Gulf region. At various times, and in various ways, I have been closely involved in anti-terrorist action and aviation security.

In my view, the free availability of the sophisticated drones that are around now, as well as of the more and more sophisticated ones that are coming fast down the line, represents the biggest threat to air transport (to say nothing of humanity as a whole) that has been seen so far, not excluding hijacking by suicidal maniacs, SAM firings by rogue military forces, or Muslim and other religious extremists.

The threat comes from unintentional collisions, or from terrorist attacks for which drones can be used in several ways.

The threat cannot be diminished by laws governing their operation, for the obvious reason that laws are obeyed only by the good.

The ONLY way that the threat can be reduced to as low as reasonably practical is to impose the same controls on their manufacture and distribution that apply to dangerous, ie nuclear, weapons, with very long prison sentences for breaking the law.

And this needs to be done sooner rather than later. Any drone is a threat to safety, or a dangerous weapon if the user wants it to be, and they are out there, now, in the hands of idiots and terrorists.Unquote.

The funny thing was that at that time I, and the few PPRuNe experts who agreed with that post, were roundly monstered by the R&N majority who saw little harm in drones, live and let live, no real danger from these little toys, got one myself, etc etc.

[er340790]

It will be interesting if any definitive proof of this 'sighting' ever shows up..... rather than the Social Media self-fulfilling dronefest-frenzy at LGW. :rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

It will be interesting if any definitive proof of this 'sighting' ever shows up.....

If they had carried on with departures and an aircraft had hit it, would that have constituted sufficient "proof" ?

[Chronus]

Is it the same party(ies) as LGW or is it a copy cat. Either way our PC plods need to sort it out in double quick time.

[wiggy]

Looks like departures have been resumed :ok:

They have...there are currently start up delays of up to an hour, plus or minus, as the backlog clears but that’s better than it was looking a couple of hours ago.

[Dee Vee]

Well LHR might get the chance to use the technology, flights suspended due to 'drone sighting'.

What;s the tech supposed to do? Can't be working very well if they couldn't "take out" said drone and continue operations...

[Matt48]

Peter Gibson of CASA being interviewed on radio stated ' if a pilot is notified that a drone is visible or operating in the vicinity of the airport approach, the pilot can choose an alternate approach', really, opposing traffic, tail winds, etc, come to mind.

[Carlos Kaiser]

Peter Gibson of CASA being interviewed on radio stated ' if a pilot is notified that a drone is visible or operating in the vicinity of the airport approach, the pilot can choose an alternate approach', really, opposing traffic, tail winds, etc, come to mind.

Running out of gas also comes to mind.

[arketip]

Peter Gibson of CASA being interviewed on radio stated ' if a pilot is notified that a drone is visible or operating in the vicinity of the airport approach, the pilot can choose an alternate approach', really, opposing traffic, tail winds, etc, come to mind.

Some aircraft have radios to call ATC and ask for another runway and to coordinate with other traffic.



Running out of gas also comes to mind.


Some pilots carry reserve fuel for that.

[DaveReidUK]

Interestingly, the aforementioned Peter Gibson, in a recent interview (presumably not the one referred to above) stated that about 80% of drones have control systems that embed the drone serial number in the signal transmissions and that this, in conjunction with compulsory drone registration in Australia, would dramatically change the way rules relating to drones are enforced there.

[Matt48]

Interestingly, the aforementioned Peter Gibson, in a recent interview (presumably not the one referred to above) stated that about 80% of drones have control systems that embed the drone serial number in the signal transmissions and that this, in conjunction with compulsory drone registration in Australia, would dramatically change the way rules relating to drones are enforced there.

Hi Dave,
Yes, it was in that interview that the embedded serial no was mentioned.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Well today Canada announced new rules to the already existing ones that should put more restrictions on those who fly drones...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/transport-minister-issues-new-rules-for-drone-operators-1.4246401

[rationalfunctions]

Interestingly, the aforementioned Peter Gibson, in a recent interview (presumably not the one referred to above) stated that about 80% of drones have control systems that embed the drone serial number in the signal transmissions and that this, in conjunction with compulsory drone registration in Australia, would dramatically change the way rules relating to drones are enforced there.

Haven't seen the interview yet, but I assume that the people set on causing intentional disruption would likely fly the 20% of drones without serial numbers.

I'm no drone pilot, but from what I understand the radio tech is straightforward to switch out. So even if drones are officially registered and all manufactured drones to market are traceable, it wouldn't be difficult to circumvent.

This drone issue will take a combination of legislation, education, technology and contingency planning to resolve.