Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7
Likes: 4
From: Europe
Basics
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.
Guest
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16
Likes: 2
From: Stirling
Originally Posted by finncapt;,
I'm with you windsock but that is old style policing - we must have the high tech solution
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,536
Likes: 295
From: The Alps
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/art...equipment.html
cheers
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...equipment.html
cheers
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: UK
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.
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.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,726
Likes: 103
From: The Winchester
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.
It does however suggest that drones may need a mandatory identifier, so they squawk their serial number every minute and with every transmission.
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/14/146...s-dji-forecast
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
From: uk
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.
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.
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 4
Likes: 13
From: EGFF
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.
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
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?
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?
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,557
Likes: 95
From: moon
H Peacock:
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.
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.
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.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,694
Likes: 2,033
From: Reading, UK
A conviction that will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, so not really a valid parallel, in fact not one at all.
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 165
Likes: 33
From: YARM
This article by the Low institute -- https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...eld-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.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 1
From: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
From the Sussex Police:
“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 or call 101 quoting Operation Trebor. If you see anyone acting suspiciously in the area of the airport, please dial 999 immediately.”
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 Gatwick
News • Dec 22, 2018 01:23 GMT
Superintendent 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 or call 101 quoting Operation Trebor. If you see anyone acting suspiciously in the area of the airport, please dial 999 immediately.”
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Canberra
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.
Police have yet to disclose the ages and genders of those arrested and where they were apprehended.
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 180
From: USA
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.
strange comment to make, expecting them to announce later a naughty 13 yo boy and girl have been let off with a warning.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 694
Likes: 1
From: US/EU
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
expialidocious
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: Essex, UK
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
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,694
Likes: 2,033
From: Reading, UK
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.
Police have yet to disclose the ages and genders of those arrested and where they were apprehended.
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 133
Likes: 60
From: Europe
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.
How clever was this guy not to remotely switch off the flashing nav lights, he might have got away with it.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,831
Likes: 16
From: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
"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.)
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.)