Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: world
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish wrote:
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...
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.
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...
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,
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.
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.
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
"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
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Outside the 12 mile limit
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/comp...son/vi-BBR83SC
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/comp...son/vi-BBR83SC
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nottingham
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.)
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.)
But? Nothing. It seemed to take them by surprise and it should not have done.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: s e england
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Relocating at present.
Age: 63
Posts: 115
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scrotes will need serious protection and a safe house if they are let out on bail.
Gatwick drone: Identities of arrested couple revealed
Given that they are quite small (couple of foot), can be flying at say 400' at 20 knots
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?
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/201...uple-revealed/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...uple-revealed/
One remembers when the Telegraph reported the news - not simple conjecture like the tabloids.