Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Old 21st Dec 2018, 21:45
  #1021 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,872
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?
PAXboy is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2018, 22:08
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,384
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.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2018, 22:15
  #1023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789 View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2018, 22:20
  #1024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 69
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by ILS27LEFT View Post
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-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.
unworry is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 00:46
  #1025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,975
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 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.”


Airbubba is online now  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 01:27
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 0
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.
Dee Vee is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 01:56
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Dee Vee View Post
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.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 05:52
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
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?
msjh is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 05:53
  #1029 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by scudpilot View Post
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.
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 06:23
  #1030 (permalink)  
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 584
Originally Posted by msjh View Post
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
Memetic is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 06:44
  #1031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
Originally Posted by Dee Vee View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 07:04
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 86
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.
DroneDog is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 07:12
  #1033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,401
"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.)
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 07:15
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
Originally Posted by DroneDog View Post
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 ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 07:26
  #1035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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.
DroneDog is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 07:43
  #1036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 5
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.

Last edited by outlawuk; 22nd Dec 2018 at 08:00.
outlawuk is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 08:19
  #1037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 1,672
dirk85 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 08:26
  #1038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
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.
deadheader is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 08:40
  #1039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: world
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Locking Nut View Post
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.
costalpilot is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2018, 08:48
  #1040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 289
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...
16024 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.