PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Drones threatening commercial a/c? (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c.html)

Airbubba 21st Dec 2018 04:24

Gatwick Notam'ed Open at 0418Z 21 December 2018
 
I guess the mitigation is the sniper team...


A4124/18 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QFALT/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5109N00011W005
A) EGKK B) 1812210418 C) 1812211200
E) AD OPEN. RISK OF INCREASED DRONE ACTIVITY. MITIGATION IN PLACE.


Airbubba 21st Dec 2018 04:33

From www.gatwickairport.com :


Flight Disruption

Friday 21st December 04:11

Gatwick continues to advise passengers to check the status of their flight with their airline before travelling to the airport.

We are currently working with airlines and air traffic controllers to introduce a limited number of flights over the coming hours.



Airbubba 21st Dec 2018 04:37

From Eurocontrol:


21DEC 05:16

EGKK (London Gatwick) will be available after 0800 utc but with low acceptance rate.
Aircraft operators are asked to keep their FPLs updated.
When flights are ready to go please request the departure TWR to send a REA message to ETFMS.

NMOC Brussels

Airbubba 21st Dec 2018 04:57

Looks like the first aircraft to land and test the mitigation is Thomas Cook 4801, a B-753 from EMA.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....97cf31aab1.jpg

clareprop 21st Dec 2018 04:59

05:55 Local ....Condor 757 out of East Midlands appears to have just landed. Update: 06:05Local..China Eastern A330 from Shanghai on approach...
FR showing about ten other flights heading for LGW.

Wycombe 21st Dec 2018 06:02

Isn't jamming being used to stop drones going over prison walls? Not sure if that technology can be used in an airport environment, but if it can it should be.

racedo 21st Dec 2018 06:02

Flights are starting again thankfully but there is a huge backlog to clear.

Pittsextra 21st Dec 2018 06:13

Just listening to radio 4 and the interview with Gatwick operating officer and one wonders what on earth took so long to implement the plan suggesting there was no prior plan..

olster 21st Dec 2018 06:31

Hopeless and opiniated...seriously? Gatwick closes down and the politicians who are responsible are beyond criticism?

El Bunto 21st Dec 2018 06:44


Originally Posted by Wycombe (Post 10341184)
Isn't jamming being used to stop drones going over prison walls? Not sure if that technology can be used in an airport environment, but if it can it should be.

Jamming only works on drones under remote command, not those with pre-programmed onboard routes. To affect them you'd need to hit them with EMP or jam local GPS reception*, neither of which seems safe in the vicinity of an airport.

* at which point they could revert to the ancient technique of dead-reckoning; fly south for three seconds, then west etc

Icarus2001 21st Dec 2018 06:46


or jam local GPS reception*, neither of which seems safe in the vicinity of an airport.
Yes clearly risky jamming GPS signal locally near an airport when all the aircraft ARE GROUNDED.

Pontius 21st Dec 2018 07:34


There is zero terror involved here.
Terrorism does not have to involve an actual act. Just the threat is enough for terrorism to work. The threat here is that potentially an aircraft could hit a drone and crash, killing all on board. You do not need that to actually happen to determine the threat of the drones is a terrorism event. There's certainly no terror.....yet. Would you rather there was before classing this as an act of terrorism or is the potential not enough for you?

DaveReidUK 21st Dec 2018 07:39


Originally Posted by Icarus2001 (Post 10341216)
Yes clearly risky jamming GPS signal locally near an airport when all the aircraft ARE GROUNDED.

Jamming GPS - anywhere - is likely to have massive unintended consequences well beyond aviation.

atakacs 21st Dec 2018 07:44

Do we have any information as of why the airport could be now opened?
Did they indentify the operator(s)? What made flight operation safe again?
Wonder if this was some sort of extorsion scheme with a ransom being paid...

Alderney 21st Dec 2018 07:55

Could it be simply that, rather than any high-tech solution, the weather is too blustery for drones today? That could account for Gatwick's cautious restart.

MikeBanahan 21st Dec 2018 07:58


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10341251)
Jamming GPS - anywhere - is likely to have massive unintended consequences well beyond aviation.

There is considerable concern in some circles that GPS has also become a critical infrastructure component for the use of its timing signals, including for synchronising the time slots used in the Airwave system which all the emergency services depend on for communications, see http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications...-space-systems

I find it particularly alarming that the National Grid may be dependent on it also. That this should not have happened is clear, but mitigating it is a whole other matter.

scudpilot 21st Dec 2018 08:07


Originally Posted by Pontius (Post 10341250)
Terrorism does not have to involve an actual act. Just the threat is enough for terrorism to work. The threat here is that potentially an aircraft could hit a drone and crash, killing all on board. You do not need that to actually happen to determine the threat of the drones is a terrorism event. There's certainly no terror.....yet. Would you rather there was before classing this as an act of terrorism or is the potential not enough for you?

I thought the definition of Terrorism involved causing disruption to infrastructure and financial issues.
This pretty much fits the bill IMHO.

Gove N.T. 21st Dec 2018 08:12

Drone regulation
 

Originally Posted by lapp (Post 8720114)
I'm afraid that drones are an unconfessed nightmare for airport security managers. No need to say more.

written Oct 2014
How true and i wonder how many airport managers and regulatory authorities around the world will be looking at this as a matter of urgency.

Coconutty 21st Dec 2018 08:18

No amount of Legislation wiill stop a determined Criminal - by definition Criminals break the Law !

Comparisons with Bird Strikes are flawed - Birds don't have built in Power Sources - with their associated explosive risks.

IMHO the only real answer is the use of Technology to either prevent Drones from operating in and aorund Airfileds,
or to interrupt their flight ( whether this be Signal Jammmg, or a more physical form of intervention ) to bring them down,
where they can be forensically examined with a view to identifing the culprit(s).

cattletruck 21st Dec 2018 08:38

Something SteveH said got me thinking. Besides firing chickens into engines during certification they should also be firing in a couple of popular drones.

It's an awful problem that is difficult to solve, much like the laser pointer problem.

Kiltrash 21st Dec 2018 08:51

If this is Terrorism then so is a crack pot lashing themselves to a M25 motorway bridge causing massive tailbacks both ways.
​​Somthing we may have to live with. Especially if the miscreants are not caught and severely dealt with. No videos uploaded from the perps or claims of why made public yet . A good day for Mrs May to bury #Brexit news. Coincidence?

sky9 21st Dec 2018 08:54

This individual has done what BALPA has been trying to do for some years without success, make the politicians and airports see sense.
Why are drones permitted within Class A airspace without specific clearance from ATC?

Tom Bangla 21st Dec 2018 08:57


Originally Posted by scudpilot (Post 10341272)
I thought the definition of Terrorism involved causing disruption to infrastructure and financial issues.
This pretty much fits the bill IMHO.

There's no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, but this is from a 2005 publication (Root Causes of Terrorism):
"terrorism is a set of methods of combat rather than an identifiable ideology or movement, and involves premeditated use of violence against (primarily) non-combatants in order to achieve a psychological effect of fear on others than the immediate targets.”
Hence, terrorism seeks to cause fear through violence or the threat of violence. These drones at LGW seem to have done exactly that, even if the whole story is yet to emerge.

blind pew 21st Dec 2018 09:01

Flatmate of mine whilst beating up the countryside very low and fast got a model aircraft with the intake of the hunter. The energy in a large heavy lump of aluminium at more than double the speed of an airliner on approach of take off is considerably more than an over the counter drone. It did go through the skin and take out his hydraulics but that was all. Thirty years on model aircraft are still flying everywhere and the frogs still manage to route their low level flights over my brothers club without bothering about his models flying above them. It’s politics wrt more big brother and taking our minds of the political crooks.

felixflyer 21st Dec 2018 09:02

Saw this advert on the tube the other day.

Maybe a group like this were involved.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ab69600a59.jpg

ShotOne 21st Dec 2018 09:26

Sky9, please explain how piling stricter rules on law-abiding UAS operators will combat attacks of this sort

vancouv 21st Dec 2018 09:31

Sky9 -

Why are drones permitted within Class A airspace without specific clearance from ATC?
Silly old ATC, if only they'd refused the drone operators request for clearance this could all have been prevented. :ugh:

wiggy 21st Dec 2018 09:36


Originally Posted by blind pew (Post 10341311)
Flatmate of mine whilst beating up the countryside very low and fast got a model aircraft with the intake of the hunter. The energy in a large heavy lump of aluminium at more than double the speed of an airliner on approach of take off is considerably more than an over the counter drone. It did go through the skin and take out his hydraulics but that was all. Thirty years on model aircraft are still flying everywhere and the frogs still manage to route their low level flights over my brothers club without bothering about his models flying above them. It’s politics wrt more big brother and taking our minds of the political crooks.

I don’t recall many RC aircraft of that era being a “large heavy lump of aluminium”, and whilst I take your point about relative speeds I don’t fancy finding out what a heavy, dense battery pack on a household drone will do to the Fan (and downstream components) on one of the current high bypass engines, especially when running at takeoff power.

ShyTorque 21st Dec 2018 09:42


Originally Posted by wiggy (Post 10341331)
I don’t recall many RC aircraft of that era being a “large heavy lump of aluminium”,

The airframe wasn't, but a 10cc glow plug engine and a tuned pipe are far heavier than an anti-aircraft round.

sky9 21st Dec 2018 10:14


Originally Posted by vancouv (Post 10341329)
Sky9 -

Silly old ATC, if only they'd refused the drone operators request for clearance this could all have been prevented. :ugh:

No but drones are technically aircraft and there is absolutely no reason why drones could not be given permission to operate at a specific time place and height within controlled airspace with the clearance could be given electronically. At the present time it would appear that they have been given unrestricted access up to within 1km of an airfield and a specific height in all airspace
The current operator if he gets caught will no doubt claim that he wasn't endangering an aircraft because there were all grounded and the jury will no doubt find him innocent or the judge will give him a suspended sentence.

diddy1234 21st Dec 2018 10:16

wouldn't this whole incident be rather ironic if it turns out to be an old boy farmer trying 'to get with the times' with a industrial drone to crop spray his fields (I know there is a lot more requirements needed).
not having the experience or full know how but dangerous enough to think he knows and planning a route over his crops and sending the drone on it's way.
I can just imagine him (or her) sitting in his front room thinking 'this new fangled technology is great', completely unaware what is actually going on. none the wiser.

switch_on_lofty 21st Dec 2018 10:23

3 years ago police cuts removed 50 specialist officers from airport flightpath protection. Originally deployed to counter the perceived terrorist manpad threat, would have been useful to instead expand remit to counter the well-warned drone threat. All I could find was this Reuters article. There must be more in the public domain somewhere.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-police-exclusive-idUKKBN0TN0Q320151204

"Known as Flight Path Protection Teams (FPPT), the British police units were set up in 2008 to find and negate the threat from locations near airports where militants could fire Manpads or similar weaponry at planes as they take off and land.

They also work with local communities to collect intelligence about any suspicious activity.

Police chiefs plan to reduce their number from about 50 officers around the country to two constables based in London because they have assessed that there is currently minimal risk of such attacks, the two sources told Reuters."

RealFish 21st Dec 2018 10:30


Originally Posted by olster (Post 10341205)
Hopeless and opiniated...seriously? Gatwick closes down and the politicians who are responsible are beyond criticism?

I think that you'll find that the person(s) responsible is / are someone skulking around Gatwick in possession of a drone.

WHBM 21st Dec 2018 10:40

All reminds me of the Iceland volcano of 10 years ago, nobody is left in authority who is capable of taking decisions on what to do, all too frightened of being second-guessed by somebody afterwards so leave it to "someone else" along the chain.

cjm_2010 21st Dec 2018 10:45


Originally Posted by RealFish (Post 10341375)
I think that you'll find that the person(s) responsible is / are someone skulking around Gatwick in possession of a drone.

I'd put money on that actual team (not one single individual) being in a van, heading up the M3 at this very moment, towards the M25 and Heathrow airport to repeat the same shenanigans again - probably on Christmas eve.

Auxtank 21st Dec 2018 10:53


Originally Posted by cjm_2010 (Post 10341384)
I'd put money on that actual team (not one single individual) being in a van, heading up the M3 at this very moment, towards the M25 and Heathrow airport to repeat the same shenanigans again - probably on Christmas eve.

Possibly. But my money's on it being a demonstration of ability.
The team who did it are many miles from the EGKK now and drinking some beers and finessing their road map of intended extortion.
"EGLL - you're next unless you transfer X amount of £'s in to offshore account No; 1234, etc, etc.

davidjpowell 21st Dec 2018 12:27


Originally Posted by sky9 (Post 10341361)
No but drones are technically aircraft and there is absolutely no reason why drones could not be given permission to operate at a specific time place and height within controlled airspace with the clearance could be given electronically. At the present time it would appear that they have been given unrestricted access up to within 1km of an airfield and a specific height in all airspace
The current operator if he gets caught will no doubt claim that he wasn't endangering an aircraft because there were all grounded and the jury will no doubt find him innocent or the judge will give him a suspended sentence.

In reality operators with a PfCO will be aware when flying in an area that is either controlled or closed to controlled airspace and will make contact with the appropriate tower. Typically they want to know where one is flying, the height and a contact number, and to get a call when flying is completed. If they have a greater concern about the proposed location if on the flightpath it is then discussed, and usually some sort of compromise worked out.

It is of course obvious that yesterday's dronist was not flying to anyone's rules.....

Sailvi767 21st Dec 2018 13:39


Originally Posted by Wycombe (Post 10341184)
Isn't jamming being used to stop drones going over prison walls? Not sure if that technology can be used in an airport environment, but if it can it should be.

jamming electronics at a airport. What could go wrong with that plan!

chopjock 21st Dec 2018 14:08


Originally Posted by DroneDog (Post 10340117)
Hopefully, the culprits will be caught, the cost to the airlines and the airports if horrific but if I were a passenger who has been affected I would seek redress via the small claims court against whoever is responsible. A few thousand claims for lost business or inconvenience will make others think twice.

We know who is responsible for closing the runways... The authorities for over reacting to the perceived danger... Looks like a small "phantom" type drone in the video, (it even had it's lights on to be seen) weighing less than 7Kgs and not even required to remain clear of controlled airspace.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

wiggy 21st Dec 2018 14:45


Originally Posted by chopjock (Post 10341497)
We know who is responsible for closing the runways... The authorities for over reacting to the perceived danger... Looks like a small "phantom" type drone in the video, (it even had it's lights on to be seen) weighing less than 7Kgs and not even required to remain clear of controlled airspace.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

If you are going selectively pick at the U.K. regs then could I perhaps fill in a few details you’ve missed, such as the issue of flying within 1km of an airfield such as LGW ( Article 94B ) and also the important issue of Article 241, “A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property”.....










All times are GMT. The time now is 15:58.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.