Drones threatening commercial a/c?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This incident comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_clown_sightings
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
However that said is there not a rule in politics that you should never let a crisis go to waste?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Relocating at present.
Age: 63
Posts: 115
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/
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.
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.
Last edited by OPENDOOR; 26th Dec 2018 at 08:46. Reason: Update
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/616...rone-s-14.html. Go to post #270. From there, you can watch a video.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/
For those interested; https://uavionix.com/products/ping2020/
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???
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???