EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: chris_leyson on December 20, 2018, 07:28:23 pm
-
For nearly 24h a pair of drones have closed Gatwick, Britan's second busiest, airport and now the army have been called in to assist. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46640033 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46640033)
On the face of it, it looks like the authorities havn't used any counter measures to capture or disable the drones and maybe there is nothing available at short notice or more likely they are trying to locate the drone pilot or pilots. Perhaps the army have some DF gear that could be employed to narrow down the search area(s) to locate the drone pilot or pilots.
The chaos caused at one of the busiest times of year highlights a lot of shortcommings in both legislation, drone countermeasures and the airlines complete inability to fly passengers to or from other airports.
There has been some speculation that these could be larger than normal drones because they've managed to stay in the air for quite some and it's quite likely that they've been modified in some way. At present you can't fly a drone within 1km of an airport perimeter but the airline pilots association and NATS have recomended a 5km exclusion zone which the goverment ignored. Airport authorities have seemingly done bugger all when it comes to drone countermeasures so this is a wake up call as it was bound to happen sooner or later.
I'm not against flying drones or model aircraft and I would expect 99.9% of drone or model aircraft pilots use common sense and fly safely. However, as a drone pilot tweeted to the BBC, it costs up to £1000 for a three day training course before you can be certified, who is going spend £1000 when you can buy a drone for £50.
There could be several drones and pilots involved and a lot of reporting is probably speculation, we won't know until the drone pilot or pilots are caught.
-
Please, don't call them drones, it's quad-copters.
Seems like pretty well planed sabotage. It's not hobbyists doing this as a prank. If they didn't use model helicopters they would have used something else so I don't see why they should punish model aircraft hobbyists. Is there even any evidence there is someone actively controlling them? They could just be programmed to fly around randomly at Gatwick with the help of GPS.
-
It seems like yet another ludicrously cheap way for state-actors and other hostile groups to create massive national infrastructure disruption (not suggesting for one moment that this is the case here).
It definitely spotlights another hole though, one that that needs to be fixed - Yesterday!
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
With which magic technology?
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
Police claim it's too dangerous..
In practice probably hard to hit with a rifle and too far away for a shotgun.
My guess is it's been a preprogrammed course rather than live control to avoid radio detection.
Probably only appearing briefly then disappearing again.
If you wanted to really do this effectively, you could fly drones to park in various very inaccessible locations, then take off & fly round and land in different locations every few hours. For extra points, even charge themselves.
Flightradar24 shows the ground vehicles have been running around like crazy
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
I gather from local news reports that they don't stay up long enough to be located and responded to. Speculation from Police is it's someone in a car or van flying the thing(s) over the airport then back to the car before stowing it and driving off somewhere else.
-
I see.
My guess would be they are preprogrammed too, it seems way too risky to remote control them. The police might have some evidence they are not. If they are radio controlled you could jam the signal and disable them that way, unless they use some very fancy radio, so that would also suggest they are preprogrammed.
-
What do they do when birds pose a threat to aviation? (Not so uncommon)
-
I see.
My guess would be they are preprogrammed too, it seems way too risky to remote control them. The police might have some evidence they are not. If they are radio controlled you could jam the signal and disable them that way, unless they use some very fancy radio, so that would also suggest they are preprogrammed.
Fancy radio, or maybe cellular over a voice channel - you could easily get realtime GPS and inertial position back, and waypoints/commands with sufficiently low latency
-
I gather from local news reports that they don't stay up long enough to be located and responded to. Speculation from Police is it's someone in a car or van flying the thing(s) over the airport then back to the car before stowing it and driving off somewhere else.
Unless it's some Irish idiots upset over how Brexit is going or some other relatively unsophisticated yokels this seems unlikely. If it's say the Russians I doubt they'd want their actors to get caught (proper caught, not just identified like last time). The risk of this method seems huge. We could speculate how a sophisticated actor would do it in a low risk way, but I don't think it's a good idea.
I fear technology will cause the end of freedom, cheap UAVs and biotech especially are making it possible for malcontents to cause mass harm in ways previously restricted to state actors (or at least very large cults).
-
Don't the UK police have their own drones with AI tech up the yinyang that can photograph the ground in extreme high resolution and highlight for them every single car or person that moves for miles, in any manner that meets all sorts of criteria, whichever ones they pick?
I'm pretty sure Ive seen videos on this tech and its use there.
-
@Apis Changed the title to be technically correct, could be a hexa-copter, maybe. Thanks for correcting me on that.
I gather from local news reports that they don't stay up long enough to be located and responded to. Speculation from Police is it's someone in a car or van flying the thing(s) over the airport then back to the car before stowing it and driving off somewhere else.
My guess is it's been a preprogrammed course rather than live control to avoid radio detection.
Good comments from mikeselectricstuff and nali, they're probably autonomous to avoid radio detection and they might not be using GPS for navigation. They say it's not terrorism but it could be "economic terrorism" just look at how much economic damage has been done in one day, the final bill could run into millions for very little hardware cost. We've let the cat out of the bag and some very creative person or people have taken advantage.
-
What do they do when birds pose a threat to aviation? (Not so uncommon)
They used to use birds of prey, hawks I think, to scare off bird flocks and anyway they throw frozen chickens into aero enginges during the design phase in an effort to make them bird proof. EDIT: I think they defrost the chickens first otherwise it wouldn't be a valid test. Geese are probably some of the largest birds you might find in the UK or Europe but are they going to pose a potential threat at an airport, unlikely, but if you happen to hit a flock of geese mid flight then I think you might have problems. It's their airspace not ours, period. Common sense would dictate that you avoid flying into flocks of birds.
-
"Gatwick Airport: Army called in amid drone chaos"
Supt Justin Burtenshaw, head of armed policing for Sussex and Surrey, described attempts to catch whoever was controlling the drones as "painstaking" because it was "a difficult and challenging thing to locate them".
"Each time we believe we get close to the operator, the drone disappears; when we look to reopen the airfield, the drone reappears," he said.
I can't believe it's still on-going :palm:
-
Fancy radio, or maybe cellular over a voice channel - you could easily get realtime GPS and inertial position back, and waypoints/commands with sufficiently low latency
Using cellular would be pretty clever. Then you could remote control it from anywhere in the world, maybe while monitoring traffic with something like Flightradar24, if you can get that data without too much latency, which I guess is doable.
@Apis Changed the title to be technically correct, could be a hexa-copter, maybe. Thanks for correcting me on that.
Thanks :-+, true it could be hexa- or octo- etc. I think the general term is multirotor or multicopter.
They say it's not terrorism but it could be "economic terrorism" just look at how much economic damage has been done in one day, the final bill could run into millions for very little hardware cost. We've let the cat out of the bag and some very creative person or people have taken advantage.
Terrorism usually means that the motive behind a crime is to achieve some specific political goal.
-
Quadcopters could assist in deploying a very low tech, automated solution for drones in the form of a fishing net.
-
Don't the UK police have their own drones with AI tech up the yinyang that can photograph the ground in extreme high resolution and highlight for them every single car or person that moves for miles, in any manner that meets all sorts of criteria, whichever ones they pick?
I'm pretty sure Ive seen videos on this tech and its use there.
Lets not steer this thread into one of your conspiracy theory things :/ I know the police do use quad-copters to record and assess crime scenes, and they are also good for publicity - the public likes to think the police use the latest tech. But "highlight for them every single car or person for miles" is a bit far.
-
Quadcopters could assist in deploying a very low tech, automated solution for drones in the form of a fishing net.
Now that is actually a good idea.
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
With which magic technology?
FPV racing quadcopter with skilled pilot and some light&strong (dyneema/kevlar) net. Shape charge secondary "kamikaze weapon" as last resort.
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
Anti-aircraft missiles ?
I can't believe it's still on-going :palm:
I can, when it comes to a travel crisis, we're the best.
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
With which magic technology?
FPV racing quadcopter with skilled pilot and some light&strong (dyneema/kevlar) net. Shape charge secondary "kamikaze weapon" as last resort.
Hey, they could put that on to keep the passengers amused when the French air traffic controllers go on strike. ;D
-
Don't the UK police have their own drones with AI tech up the yinyang that can photograph the ground in extreme high resolution and highlight for them every single car or person that moves for miles, in any manner that meets all sorts of criteria, whichever ones they pick?
I'm pretty sure Ive seen videos on this tech and its use there.
Lets not steer this thread into one of your conspiracy theory things :/ I know the police do use quad-copters to record and assess crime scenes, and they are also good for publicity - the public likes to think the police use the latest tech. But "highlight for them every single car or person for miles" is a bit far.
Indeed. Even if true then they would just see a *lot* of cars and people. Then what?
Not that they would need to anyway. Gatwick is surrounded by a whole shitload of both CCTV and ANPR cameras (as I suppose is the case for most major ports & airports... I just know LGW as my office is just outside the airport perimeter)
-
What do they do when birds pose a threat to aviation? (Not so uncommon)
At least in Spain resort to falconry to scare them away.
Except of course a falcon can't scare a griffon vulture, which seem to have a penchant for the Bilbao Airport.
-
They use AI to track each of those dots and identify the ones whose behavior violates whatever rules they tell it to. Thats why those companies get the big bucks.
Indeed. Even if true then they would just see a *lot* of cars and people. Then what?
Not that they would need to anyway. Gatwick is surrounded by a whole shitload of both CCTV and ANPR cameras (as I suppose is the case for most major ports & airports... I just know LGW as my office is just outside the airport perimeter)
-
FPV racing quadcopter with skilled pilot and some light&strong (dyneema/kevlar) net. Shape charge secondary "kamikaze weapon" as last resort.
That assumes the pilot of the chaser quad knows pretty much exactly where the offending quad is, however, by the time the intruder is spotted and authorities called in, the offender has flown way out of visual range.
Anti-aircraft missiles ?
I suspect you are joking, but just in case you're not, and disregarding the obvious issues of launching missiles inside the operational civilian airport, I don't think there are any anti-aircraft missiles capable of locking on to a multirotor. Those things are too small for radar, laser or optical guidance, and too cold for IR.
A shotgun could work, though.
-
They use AI to track each of those dots and identify the ones whose behavior violates whatever rules they tell it to. Thats why those companies get the big bucks.
OK then how about you post some links citing how UK police "photograph the ground in extreme high resolution and highlight for them every single car or person that moves for miles" then "use AI to track each of those dots and identify the ones whose behavior violates whatever rules they tell it to"?
-
I don't remember the name of this show, it was years ago. What I remember is they used helicopters, they had very high res cameras, they used AI. They were cops and they were fighting crimes, it wasn't random.
If you want to learn more about that, consult the computer science literature. There is tons of it.
Its not rocket science. People and vehicles emit heat. Which makes them stand out from everything else thats cooler.
This is the 21st century, after all.
-
What do they do when birds pose a threat to aviation? (Not so uncommon)
At least in Spain resort to falconry to scare them away.
Except of course a falcon can't scare a griffon vulture, which seem to have a penchant for the Bilbao Airport.
There is a video somewhere on utube about a facility where they train falcons to catch small quadcopters and bring them to the trainer. So may be an option.
-
I don't remember the name of this show, it was years ago. What I remember is they used helicopters, they had very high res cameras, they used AI. They were cops and they were fighting crimes, it wasn't random.
Ah, a TV show. OK.
Its not rocket science. People and vehicles emit heat. Which makes them stand out from everything else thats cooler.
This is the 21st century, after all.
That's thermal imaging which originated many years ago back in WWII, and a completely different subject.
-
Something odd on flightradar24 - Easyjet plane came onto runway, did 2 laps and then going back to stand.
Makes me wonder - if you wanted to be extremely clever you could have a system that looked at flightradar24, or direct ADS-B transmissions to automatically fly a drone when it saw new activity at the airport.
Ground vehicles are still whizzing around all over the place
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
1. There are numerous anti drone technologies available.
2. Reports say the military is now involved. I am sure they have plenty of jamming technology available to protect heads of state against incoming missiles and radio controlled devices.
3. Go get the nearest quad-copter FPV racing pilot, and he could very easily crash his quad-copter into the rouge drone. It is amazing what quad-copter racing pilots can do. Imagine the headlines: 'Quad-copter pilot saves the day for 100,000 stranded people'. The anti quad-copter biased media would shit their pants.
-
Any reason they can't simply be shot down?
You will find that in most countries Drones be they fixed wing or Quadcopter styles are 'aircraft' under the local Air Navigation codes. As such Police under the law have limited power to fire on aircraft unless they pose a clear risk to humans and property to a lesser extent. Taking any ballistic approach to a drone in the air is potentially stupid as where does that projectile go when they miss and they will.
Simply trying to dump a multi kg lump of anything from altitude using a random means of jamming has downsides too. Uncontrolled lumps kill too in particular around populated areas or crowds. Consider 4 or 5kg doing 80-100km/hr losing all control and drones get a lot heavier and faster. Protecting a military outpost from a strike is one thing but it is not a solution for all places or circumstances.
Mid air collision as a response by another drone just not going to happen. By the time you get a competent person even in the air whatever was intended has been done and dusted even before the slim chance of getting that collision.
The current 'geo fencing' technologies that a lot of the commercial drones come fitted with (one of mine has it) works really well as government can effectively block those drones being flown in any sensible manner.
I am currently working on a design using off the shelf boards and components where there will be NO geofencing restrictions and the code is open sourced regardless. This is simple cheap and accessible to all.
'But what if we block the GPS' - drones don't have to have GPS to fly. If you want to avoid most of the hitec counter measures and cause harm you don't use a quadcopter for a start you use an aircraft and minimise the metal and heat (easy to do) they fly longer faster and carry bigger payloads. Run redundant receivers and transmitters on very different parts of the spectrum and away you go and you FLY the drone/plane at your target. By the time an airport as in this case figured out you were coming you are already there.
The Idiots of the world can't be stopped and a baseball bat to the head would only increase their IQ's. Those intent on causing harm or disruption will find a way around it as we have seen back into history not just recently. Fear mongering and media hype is not a solution either.
-
Latest news says police or maybe army going to shoot it down. Ballistic geometry says you have to be underneath the target because if you miss the bullet will come down within a given radius and you need to make that as small as possible.
Good luck with that one then and how many rounds will that take ? it just says we've got fuck all defense against a rouge multicoptor and maybe tomorrow we'll put another one up if you shoot that one down. It's a wake up call, this is robotics and A.I it's real and it's happening now and how the hell are you going to deal with it.
-
It happened a long time ago but now it is just easier and a lot of it off the shelf. Guided missiles are just fancy 'drones' too. Military Target drones have been around a very long time too.
This is the sort of stuff I am talking about for home brew non geo fenced controllers http://ardupilot.org/ (http://ardupilot.org/)
Ban Guns people use knives, clubs and fire to commit murder. Licence and control Fertilizer to stop truck bombs, skip the bomb and just use the truck. :'(
-
My bets are:
1.) attempt at extortion (must not be the same place, but akin to: look what we did at Gatwick)
2.) attempt at manipulation (stock or related)
3.) disgruntled citizen (flight noise, ex-employee...)
4.) irresponsible, dangerous young people (like the typical laser pointer users, but with more money)
-
@beanflying I think poeple have tried dumping kg of shit on people with quad copters and it hasn't worked very well.
But using autonimous multi-copters to block an airport, that is new. Imagine if they did that at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and East Midlands then we would be screwed. Geofencing and jamming are useless and you're going to shoot them down, good luck with that one.
-
Just monitor Facebook and I am sure some kid is going to brag he did it.
-
@beanflying I think poeple have tried dumping kg of shit on people with quad copters and it hasn't worked very well.
But using autonimous multi-copters to block an airport, that is new. Imagine if they did that at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and East Midlands then we would be screwed. Geofencing and jamming are useless and you're going to shoot them down, good luck with that one.
I think you may have misread my post. All methods of control have problems and can be circumvented fairly easily and I certainly didn't say anything pro shooting down anything.
We have had situations here and I know in other countries where Quadcopters have been sighted 'within the area' whatever that means of fires grounding firefighting aircraft and helis.
There has been numerous 'sightings' for decades of R/C planes near Airports including one in Melbourne within 100m of a runway. This is not new it just suits a current narrative the media likes to portray. Using Drones like a visual bomb threat in this specific way is however new.
-
So clearly whomever is piloting this quadcopter has made some amazing breakthrough in the area of battery power, which is big news in itself.
How else could a quadcopter stay aloft so very long?
</sarcasm>
-
It wasn't fiction, it was about the technology.
And it was several years ago. Let me qualify what I said. It was likely on YouTube or a similar site, it also may have been in an academic journal. I read a lot of academic papers, many of them include links to related video. I watch almost no TV, so what you likely thought of when I said TV does not apply. The video included police at work. It was not fiction. These systems are common around the globe now.
-
I get the impression there is going to be some wise-ass, watching the nightly news and laughing like a drain, thinking their "harmless little stunt" was the best fun ever.
Being so "clever" I'd like to see them caught - and then get sentenced to create a solution to defeat the crap they pulled.
Now that would be justice.
-
Just monitor Facebook and I am sure some kid is going to brag he did it.
A distinct possibility.
-
So clearly whomever is piloting this quadcopter has made some amazing breakthrough in the area of battery power, which is big news in itself.
How else could a quadcopter stay aloft so very long?
</sarcasm>
Oh come one - that's easy. They recharge from car batteries. Ever wondered why your car battery was so weak in winter, when the feral drone season is on (obviously, see OP)? There you go!
-
What brand drone is it? How big is it? Could somebody post a picture?
-
Oh look the buy my uber protection device has started half way around the world. :palm: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australian-company-says-they-could-solve-gatwick-airport-s-drone-crisis-20181220-p50nkq.html (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australian-company-says-they-could-solve-gatwick-airport-s-drone-crisis-20181220-p50nkq.html)
Won't work above maybe 50m AGL but would 'solve the crisis'. Flying a drone 200m AGL would still shutdown an Airport.
-
What brand drone is it? How big is it? Could somebody post a picture?
This is the 'best' image of it all the others have been doctored showing a wide range of commercial drones photo shopped in place.
(https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/380000/620x/Gatwick-airport-drone-passengers-delays-aliens-749197.jpg)
-
Update: the drone is an industrial model.
Well, that explains it!
-
Semi insider report here. He is a commercial UK drone pilot and fairly well connected with those who would know.
Wonder if the numpties will decide the risk is no to high and now just disappear for the time being or pick another target?
https://youtu.be/0ak5QZb0JAk
-
So clearly whomever is piloting this quadcopter has made some amazing breakthrough in the area of battery power, which is big news in itself.
How else could a quadcopter stay aloft so very long?
</sarcasm>
You only need it to be seen once every hour or two. Hanging around too long greatly increases the risk of being tracked down.
-
That will teach me not to view my subscribed youtubers. Two Weeks ago this was posted about a week before this Mmmm coincidence? puts on tinfoil hat. Only good for detecting DJI drones unlike this one.
https://youtu.be/hQ0tLPhchWU
-
At least in Spain resort to falconry to scare them away.
Except of course a falcon can't scare a griffon vulture, which seem to have a penchant for the Bilbao Airport.
There is a video somewhere on utube about a facility where they train falcons to catch small quadcopters and bring them to the trainer. So may be an option.
Yes, and there is a high probability of serious injury to the birds. So it would certainly collide with the animal welfare regulations.
-
You only need it to be seen once every hour or two. Hanging around too long greatly increases the risk of being tracked down.
I have to wonder if the whole thing has grown into an out of control witch hunt. There may well have been an original quad copter, but the place is crawling with reporters with good cameras and the only photo just dot in the sky.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1828378/Video-Drone-spotted-flying-Gatwick-airport-London.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1828378/Video-Drone-spotted-flying-Gatwick-airport-London.html)
Here's a video of one of the drones (or *the* drone). Apologies for Daily Mail but the YouTube source is gone now.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/12/21/10/7696626-6519109-This_is_how_the_drone_crisis_unfolded_at-a-22_1545386605866.jpg)
Allegedly more than one sighting as well.
-
can't you just catch it with a helicopter?
i would make a big fly swatter out of chicken wire and get some people on a MH-6 to try to swat it down
https://i1.wp.com/australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/H145M_LUH-SOF_German-Bundeswehr.jpg (https://i1.wp.com/australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/H145M_LUH-SOF_German-Bundeswehr.jpg)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Soldiers_from_the_75th_Ranger_Regiment_descend_in_an_MH-6_Little_Bird.jpg/170px-Soldiers_from_the_75th_Ranger_Regiment_descend_in_an_MH-6_Little_Bird.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Soldiers_from_the_75th_Ranger_Regiment_descend_in_an_MH-6_Little_Bird.jpg/170px-Soldiers_from_the_75th_Ranger_Regiment_descend_in_an_MH-6_Little_Bird.jpg)
the helicopter is small and it should be cheap to run for the airport
Also interesting did you notice the recent video with the kremlin and the soldiers flying around on a platform (caused a stir), maybe russia knew about this plot?
https://www.rt.com/russia/444670-helicopters-kremlin-mystery-moscow/ (https://www.rt.com/russia/444670-helicopters-kremlin-mystery-moscow/)
it was like 1 week ago, maybe intelligence alert?
if you get close you can use paintball guns maybe or simunitons
-
One of the UK news channels showed a quad-copter hovering over a football crowd, one of the 'supporters' threw a bog roll at it, which immediately brought it down on top of them.
-
I'm going to assume there will be a lot of tenders going out for systems to detect, track and capture drones. Good times for BAE.
-
At least in Spain resort to falconry to scare them away.
Except of course a falcon can't scare a griffon vulture, which seem to have a penchant for the Bilbao Airport.
There is a video somewhere on utube about a facility where they train falcons to catch small quadcopters and bring them to the trainer. So may be an option.
Yes, and there is a high probability of serious injury to the birds. So it would certainly collide with the animal welfare regulations.
Two ways to do it:
One is to train them to fly some distance above it and drop some kind of stringy thing or net. No danger to birds that way. Birds could be housed at the airport, and like carrier pigeons, trained not to bother planes and spring into action when an unauthorized drone was detected. (Carrier pigeons have a long history of service to mankind, even in wars, and in telecommunications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers), they always get through).
Can be paid literally peanuts.
In Australia and other warm weather areas (more and more as time goes on with global warming) parrots could be used.
1.) Drawback - Too cheap + not high tech enough, so no money in it.
2.) Birds too smart, might question official story.
Alternative approach.:
3.) fly another drone above the unauthorized drone and use that to deploy "nets". Or use some kind of automated cannon.
4.) Drawback, might not be accurate enough. Could make up for accuracy with repeated firing.
-
Despite all the precautions, it's back. |O
-
Of course it is.
Whatever other news they want to divert Brits' attention away from is likely still going on.
-
At least in Spain resort to falconry to scare them away.
Except of course a falcon can't scare a griffon vulture, which seem to have a penchant for the Bilbao Airport.
There is a video somewhere on utube about a facility where they train falcons to catch small quadcopters and bring them to the trainer. So may be an option.
Yes, and there is a high probability of serious injury to the birds. So it would certainly collide with the animal welfare regulations.
And what that regulations say about use of dogs by the police? Police dogs are in much more real danger of being killed, not just injured.
-
My bets are:
1.) attempt at extortion (must not be the same place, but akin to: look what we did at Gatwick)
2.) attempt at manipulation (stock or related)
3.) disgruntled citizen (flight noise, ex-employee...)
4.) irresponsible, dangerous young people (like the typical laser pointer users, but with more money)
You forgot one:
* Company selling anti-drone tech wanted to create an incentive for airports to buy their stuff. Rather than waiting for something like this too happen they paid someone to do it themselves. Suddenly everyone is buying! :)
-
maybe MI6 should spy on the anti drone defense manufacturers in case there is some SPECTRE shit going on
i would spend the least amount of money possible to solve this problem. maybe unemployed trapeze artists with tennis rackets.
maybe it would be cheaper to chase them down with some kinda flight/jet packs too then helicopters or other drones. i think if you double up every system, reduce flight time and deploy it out of a van that speeds up close you could make it safe and cheap, I think there is a kinda high performance/outdoors mentality with portable flight units, which is irrelevant to defending an airfield. they are pretty flat so you can drive a van to around where the problem is easily and have a non complicated flight path and reduce fuel costs and maintenance.
Maybe simunitions or some kind of parachute laden cross bow bolt could be used that would be much safer then a rogue bullet (the bolt could deploy a parachute after it flies some distance and have a blunt tip suitable for smashing plastic but not going through someone if it hits em on the ground.
or bird shot? if you can get close to it you can use bird shot which will be harmless and it could be made environmentally friendly with bismuth ammunition. If you get a guard to do it then you get rid of all the safety and ethics problems of giving a civilian authority a armed drone or having to resort to civilian/military cooperation or changing any laws etc because i don't think its illegal to discharge a firearm out of an air craft by an operator? you could even use civilian double barrel type shotguns so you don't need special weapons permits which I am pretty sure England is strict abound.
-
Two arrested now. Man and a woman, ages unspecified. Let's see if these guys were the real deal. If the drone comes back I guess we know...
-
Bring on the expurts and the media talking heads to 'solve' it and decide what is needed and what everyone did wrong. :bullshit: central Round two :palm:
-
I get woken
My bets are:
1.) attempt at extortion (must not be the same place, but akin to: look what we did at Gatwick)
2.) attempt at manipulation (stock or related)
3.) disgruntled citizen (flight noise, ex-employee...)
4.) irresponsible, dangerous young people (like the typical laser pointer users, but with more money)
You forgot one:
* Company selling anti-drone tech wanted to create an incentive for airports to buy their stuff. Rather than waiting for something like this too happen they paid someone to do it themselves. Suddenly everyone is buying! :)
I think they're flying lower as I get woken up a lot more now by the noise and the vibration they cause.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6522089/Two-people-arrested-criminal-use-drones-Gatwick-Airport.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6522089/Two-people-arrested-criminal-use-drones-Gatwick-Airport.html)
Daily Wail
By CHARLIE BAYLISS and TIM STICKINGS FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 12:17, 22 December 2018
'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.'
A bit too late for that.
Harm has already been done... to their flights and holidays.
Not that it is the fault of the police.
They have Geofencing in prisons but not much in airports for this kind of thing and yet they have all that security inside when it comes to individual checks.
-
content deleted by me :)
-
Now released, no longer suspects... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615) Sounds like "round up the usual suspects", i.e. arrest local drone enthusiasts.
In reality, it is probably one or more delinquent kids, the sort who drop concrete blocks off motorway bridges for fun. Despite theories about high tech detection and jamming, small drones are pretty much untraceable and the authorities will have no idea who is behind it.
As usual, technology gets ways ahead of the ability of authorities to control it. Like script kiddies who can bring organizations to their knees with ransom-ware, now those so minded can do the same to airports. There will be some criminal organizations taking an interest, meanwhile government while enact sone strict but useless laws which only impact law abiding users.
-
I'm surprised the daily fail hasn't tried to blame "foreign agencies" for this. A couple of years ago, there was an article (I have read it in dentists waiting rooms..) about how "drones from china" were spying on us to get "government secrets" from the public :palm: Its amazing how divorced from reality that paper is. Whats worse is how anything to do with technology is almost instantly treated as magic by our government, with knee-jerk reactions to things (like banning all "psychoactive substances", or banning ALL encryption) just to be seen to be doing something - when in reality they are impotent by their own ignorance.
I have no doubt this quad-copter saga will get lots of time in parliament, if anything, as a way to avoid talking about real issues, with lots of "we've set aside a task force and funding" even though it isn't required.
Now we will have a wave of companies vying for government grants to tackle the "wide-spread drone problem". I'm seriously considering jumping on that bandwagon, seeing as how our government also purchased fake bomb detectors :)
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/109577488/the-drones-that-shut-down-gatwick-airport-may-never-have-existed-police-say (https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/109577488/the-drones-that-shut-down-gatwick-airport-may-never-have-existed-police-say)
Police in Britain say it's possible the reported drones [...] may have never existed.
Jason Tingley from Sussex Police told the BBC that there was no footage or photographs of the reported drones. There was "always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place".
:palm:
From the comments: "More likely there was 'intelligence' of a potential threat (eg SAM) and the drone narrative was invented to prevent panic whilst grounding planes."
:popcorn:
-
Meanwhile, negotiations are going on that could cost individual Britons an average in the high six or low seven figures over their lifetimes. Enough to buy a house for each and every one of them. Or, not buy a house is more like it.
Coincidence?
-
The comments on the Sussex Police Twitter account make interesting reading: https://twitter.com/sussex_police/status/1076931026126061568
-
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvHeAWpWoAAjR-o.jpg:small)
-
Meanwhile, negotiations are going on that could cost individual Britons an average in the high six or low seven figures over their lifetimes. Enough to buy a house for each and every one of them. Or, not buy a house is more like it.
Coincidence?
Could you perhaps refrain from injecting your personal agenda into every thread you participate in, no matter how unrelated the subject is? It's been getting consistently worse the past few months.
-
I think it is a fascinating slow moving train wreck. Well worth a good discussion. And much more interesting than than the main local news events. Tit for tat gang land killings and KBC Bank attempts to reprocess a farm from a couple of elderly SF/IRA connected gentlemen. But it will be interesting to see if KBCs management has the guts to stick out or will just give the farm back.
-
Pilot Aircraft ID sheet
I feel it could be the work of the Grinch better add Santa to the list.
(https://www.clipartmax.com/png/middle/214-2144661_santa-sleigh-reindeer-silhouette-png-download-santa-and-sleigh-png.png)
Meanwhile Military 'Drone' flights continue to invade the world and sovereign countries airspace's with impunity because they are only used for 'good' benefiting their particular cause or interests. These are from the last 24 hours 'news'
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/12/23/583738/Yemeni-army-soldiers-allies-intercept-shoot-down-Saudiled-combat-drone-in-Saada (https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/12/23/583738/Yemeni-army-soldiers-allies-intercept-shoot-down-Saudiled-combat-drone-in-Saada)
https://www.khaama.com/drone-strike-target-militants-in-farah-province-02981/ (https://www.khaama.com/drone-strike-target-militants-in-farah-province-02981/)
https://ifpnews.com/exclusive/iran-denies-it-fired-missiles-at-us-flotilla-in-persian-gulf/ (https://ifpnews.com/exclusive/iran-denies-it-fired-missiles-at-us-flotilla-in-persian-gulf/)
-
More ....
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/police-consider-possibility-gatwick-drone-sightings-were-a-mistake-after-pair-released (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/police-consider-possibility-gatwick-drone-sightings-were-a-mistake-after-pair-released)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html)
Mass hysteria?
"An officer investigating the drone chaos at Gatwick Airport says there is no footage of the device which sparked it and it is "a possibility" there never was one.
Asked about speculation there was never such a drone flown over the airport, Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley told the BBC: "Of course, that's a possibility. We are working with human beings saying they have seen something.
"Until we've got more clarity around what they've said, the detail - the time, place, direction of travel, all those types of things - and that's a big task."
The incident, which was sparked by a drone sighting on Wednesday at around 9pm, left planes stopped from coming to or from the airport. "
-
Tens of thousands of travelers, police, helicopters, military, press, the airport themselves, and everybody else, and not one single image of the drone, even if it was just a dot. It reminds me of Salisbury.
It looks like the bloke arrested was at work at the time, lucky he wasn't just having a snooze.
-
lol it was probobly a crow
-
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if it were somehow related to the filming of "Mr. Bean Flies a Kite."
-
It seems like yet another ludicrously cheap way for state-actors and other hostile groups to create massive national infrastructure disruption (not suggesting for one moment that this is the case here).
It definitely spotlights another hole though, one that that needs to be fixed - Yesterday!
Forget state actors and groups, any disgruntled individual has the ability to shut down an airport without zero ability to track them if they are careful enough.
A cheap quad copter could be programmed to fly into the airspace and loiter around, released from any spot without range from which the perpetrator could leave seconds later, no real-time control needed.
-
Yes, but did anybody actually do that in this situation?
-
Forget state actors and groups, any disgruntled individual has the ability to shut down an airport without zero ability to track them if they are careful enough.
A cheap quad copter could be programmed to fly into the airspace and loiter around, released from any spot without range from which the perpetrator could leave seconds later, no real-time control needed.
Considering how many "anti-drone" technologies and techniques have been discussed and tested over the years, it baffles me airports don't have an effective means of tracking or taking down drone type aircraft. I imagine that many less honourable people around the world are paying attention.
I think the biggest risk to anyone flying a preprogrammed drone would be the forensic evidence left on the craft and the paper trail. You're bound to leave some traces on it and you need to take a number of precautions for it to not be traceable to your front door. They should be able to find you sooner or later, though the damage may already be done.
-
Photos ?
-
Considering how many "anti-drone" technologies and techniques have been discussed and tested over the years, it baffles me airports don't have an effective means of tracking or taking down drone type aircraft. I imagine that many less honourable people around the world are paying attention.
The hardest drone to track down is one that doesn't exist. Just imagine if people report birds, or floaters in their eyes, or distant planes that look like black dots in the sky? All it needs is the idea of a drone to catch hold and mass hysteria will do the rest.
-
Photos ?
Imaginary drones are so stealthy that they can't be detected or photographed.
I would bet that the damaged drone they've found has been lying for there for months!
-
Considering how many "anti-drone" technologies and techniques have been discussed and tested over the years, it baffles me airports don't have an effective means of tracking or taking down drone type aircraft. I imagine that many less honourable people around the world are paying attention.
I think the biggest risk to anyone flying a preprogrammed drone would be the forensic evidence left on the craft and the paper trail. You're bound to leave some traces on it and you need to take a number of precautions for it to not be traceable to your front door. They should be able to find you sooner or later, though the damage may already be done.
The problem is that stripped back into a pre programmed GPS mode (ie no data transmitted by the drone) take out most of the metal you are left with copper a few magnets and a little aluminum foil from the batteries, the rest can be composites or plastics.
Not that it is impossible with current Radar but the Airport Radars are no where near up to it and are looking for lumps in the sky not grains of sand. There was rumors of Israeli anti drone Military Tech being used at Gatwick which may or may not be correct. https://www.gpsworld.com/israeli-companies-defeat-drones-with-new-technology/ (https://www.gpsworld.com/israeli-companies-defeat-drones-with-new-technology/)
-
The police in the area are saying on Twitter that its possible there were no drones.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but thats what they were saying a few hours ago.
And they should know.
-
The police in the area are saying on Twitter that its possible there were no drones.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but thats what they were saying a few hours ago.
It's been that way for about 12 hours. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615)
"And they should know."
twitter.com/DavidAgape777/status/1076938768760954882 (http://twitter.com/DavidAgape777/status/1076938768760954882)
-
Not sure if this was already reported but looks like they have something called a "Drome Dome" that was purchased back in August but without the hard-kill laser, although it has tracking and jamming equipment:
https://www.debka.com/israel-made-drone-dome-posted-at-gatwick-airport/ (https://www.debka.com/israel-made-drone-dome-posted-at-gatwick-airport/)
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/debka/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/22141146/Drone-Dome-developed-by-Rafael-.jpg)
More articles:
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/32998 (https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/32998)
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-rafael-to-sell-6-anti-drone-systems-to-uk-1001250393 (https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-rafael-to-sell-6-anti-drone-systems-to-uk-1001250393)
-
The problem is that stripped back into a pre programmed GPS mode (ie no data transmitted by the drone) take out most of the metal you are left with copper a few magnets and a little aluminum foil from the batteries, the rest can be composites or plastics.
Not that it is impossible with current Radar but the Airport Radars are no where near up to it and are looking for lumps in the sky not grains of sand. There was rumors of Israeli anti drone Military Tech being used at Gatwick which may or may not be correct. https://www.gpsworld.com/israeli-companies-defeat-drones-with-new-technology/ (https://www.gpsworld.com/israeli-companies-defeat-drones-with-new-technology/)
Normal airport technology won't be able to deal with it, but considering how long the threat has been on the radar of various agencies it's hard to believe no technology or technique has been developed to deal with them. I can imagine the military having such technology, but not wanting to give too much away.
-
I can imagine the military having such technology, but not wanting to give too much away.
I'm not sure why the military would be bothered? I can see drones having two applications: offensive, or surveillance. As on offensive weapon, I don't see the point. A drone would have the offensive capability of a mosquito compared to traditional military ordnance. For surveillance, I don't see a small drone having the range or the stealth to be useful. (Drones are pretty noisy.) If a drone is small and close like a quadcopter you can take it out with a shotgun. If a drone is large and far away like an ROV it will show up on radar and can be shot down by traditional means. There's no indication something large like an ROV was present near Gatwick.
Realistically, for a quadcopter to shut down a major airport is just overreaction and the authorities are as much to blame as anyone.
-
How could it NOT be a media diversion?
These need translation into English to make sense.
https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/understanding-the-uk-0 (https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/understanding-the-uk-0)
http://regulatingforglobalization.com/2018/09/17/brexit-wtogats-perspective-towards-easy-divorce/ (http://regulatingforglobalization.com/2018/09/17/brexit-wtogats-perspective-towards-easy-divorce/)
https://t20argentina.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Tf-7-7-1-AdjustmentCostsG20FormatMay232018-2.pdf (https://t20argentina.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Tf-7-7-1-AdjustmentCostsG20FormatMay232018-2.pdf)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24684086 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24684086) <<-- This is behind a paywall but its a must read.
-
I can imagine the military having such technology, but not wanting to give too much away.
I'm not sure why the military would be bothered? I can see drones having two applications: offensive, or surveillance. As on offensive weapon, I don't see the point. A drone would have the offensive capability of a mosquito compared to traditional military ordnance.
... snip...
look at the date on this link:
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20111028.aspx?comments=Y (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20111028.aspx?comments=Y)
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
and
https://www.wired.com/2013/03/switchblade-afghanistan/ (https://www.wired.com/2013/03/switchblade-afghanistan/)
Note that since then the switchblade was considered effective and now deployed with U.S forces. Warhead similar to an RPG's combined with an UAV airframe that can loiter and look down on a local battlespace then be targeted. Special forces love this thing. Note the US military now doesn't call it a UAV (it used to) but it is launched and flown just like a UAV. walks and quacks like duck. This is a very hot area of weapons development around the world.
-
A big fishing net, right off the shelf, made of very fine nylon monofilament line, carried by two autonomous drones, would weigh almost nothing, and could be automated, they would take off, lifting it up and then fly a pre-programmed pattern, sweeping like a broom, over an entire area in a few minutes. That would take down any quadcopter, it would do it easily.
-
A big fishing net, right off the shelf, made of very fine nylon monofilament line, carried by two autonomous drones, would weigh almost nothing, and could be automated, they would take off, lifting it up and then fly a pre-programmed pattern, sweeping like a broom, over an entire area in a few minutes. That would take down any quadcopter, it would do it easily.
A little thing called DRAG is part of the issue not to mention trying to get two drones to pull apart (to keep the net taught) and then go forward or catch the offending drone. Sorry just not going to work.
-
Normal airport technology won't be able to deal with it, but considering how long the threat has been on the radar of various agencies it's hard to believe no technology or technique has been developed to deal with them. I can imagine the military having such technology, but not wanting to give too much away.
Drone threats are a new thing in military terms and therefore counter measures are newer. The Israeli link I provided is one of the first of it's kind but not really designed for small domestic drones.
The larger threat will come in the form of swarm technology and then trying to take down 10's and potentially 100's of drones. This is a real thing with the US, China and private companies playing in the space. Intels promo below, try stopping 500 drones flying random non colliding patterns in the dark.
https://youtu.be/5FDClBy2dwQ
-
People could have flown a model aircraft over an airport for many decades. Remote controlled model aircrafts are not new. What is new is all the computing power and algorithms that lets us make them more and more autonomous (robots).
If it turns out there wasn't any quad-copters, I wonder if people will demand that politicians take measures to prevent the dangerous effects of mass hysteria and multirotorfobia?
-
Follow the money, investigative journalists tell us. I am sure that applies in this case. Who makes money from it?
What sector of public jobs won't have to be privatized and put up for global bidding under the GPA?
https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/understanding-the-uk-0 (https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/understanding-the-uk-0)
-
Yes it would - computer controlled quadcopters can fly and maintain position within a few CM of where they are supposed to be. They can compensate for the extremely light and strong net, then drop it as soon as the drone is entangled sufficiently.
Look at some of the new materials we see coming out of labs, for example, synthetic spider silk (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180821094234.htm).
A big fishing net, right off the shelf, made of very fine nylon monofilament line, carried by two autonomous drones, would weigh almost nothing, and could be automated, they would take off, lifting it up and then fly a pre-programmed pattern, sweeping like a broom, over an entire area in a few minutes. That would take down any quadcopter, it would do it easily.
A little thing called DRAG is part of the issue not to mention trying to get two drones to pull apart (to keep the net taught) and then go forward or catch the offending drone. Sorry just not going to work.
In NZ they bring down deer all the time with spinning weighted nets thrown from copters, don't they?
-
Netting Deer with weighted nets has nothing to do with airborne nets between drones you are flying a 1000kg+ heli??
On drag from nets of any sorts. Think about trying to find first, track down the orientate the net/drones to intercept and if you are behind it catch up to it. Just simply not going to happen in any reliable form in particular if the drone is being flown by a pilot. Any chase drone needs to be better in flight than the target for a better chance of a catch or kill unless the drone pilot is stupid or doing you a favor by hovering waiting to be caught.
The only real attack options are projectile (discussed heaps already and most projectiles are a bad idea in civilian areas) or electronic So Electronic detection and killing onboard electronics for domestic/public areas makes most sense.
Before anyone says yeah but what about this one .... Here is a balistic net catch 5kg of faster drone taking out a static airborne target drone of about 1.2kg. I would buy one based on that footage ::) https://dronecatcher.nl/ or this one
https://vimeo.com/152279231
-
The police in the area are saying on Twitter that its possible there were no drones.
I'm pretty sure the police now understand it was just a false claim that got out of control.
Once someone says they saw a drone anyone who sees a bird in the distance will say "yeah i saw it too"
Having flown RC planes myself it's not uncommon to confuse a bird in the distance for your planes or your friends plane.
Not to mention the group of people in the aviation industry who don't like drones. They will take any opportunity to discredit them to try get a ban.
It's a sad fact that a small percentage of pilots consider the sky their own personal domain and not for the generic public to use.
-
I think that due to the lack of photographs or video that this was a case of mistaken identity, a plastic bag seen from a plane perhaps which then got taken over with a bad case of mass hysteria. With all the people in and around a major airport especially plane spotters with cameras I would expect to have seen some reasonable pictures of said quad-copter or whatever the unidentified flying object was. The authorities will now be desperately trying to cover themselves in something other than the poo they have presently on their faces.
-
If it does turn out to be a false alarm, the question is what will happen next. Will they address the reasons this all got out of hand, or will they still pursue the matter as if it actually was a real drone? I think I know the answer and I don't like it. It will only reinforce the near panic the public is constantly kept in already.
-
At what point do you determine that there was no drone?
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence.
-
At what point do you determine that there was no drone?
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence.
Don't know about other countries but here in the UK we have what amounts to professional plane spotters at all air fields, many of them with big expensive tele-photo lenses, the fact that none of them has come forward with any photographic evidence points to there being no evidence.
-
Apparently the "there might not have been a drone" comment was a miscommunication, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714). "67 reports of sightings" of something or other and not a single picture.
-
The Gatwick 'news' may have been intended to push some other much more important, inconvenient content 'off the telly' as they say in the UK.
At what point do you determine that there was no drone?
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence.
That happens all the time, manipulation of news feeds. It happens on the net too, people are paid to push stories inconvenient to deep pocketed clients of theirs off of home pages on major web sites with irrelevant space occupying junk. Certain subjects bring out hordes of these sock puppets.
Its really out of control here in the US. Its ruined the net for many people. A lot of the harassment of people who have some interesting thing to say is I suspect an intentional campaign to close down whats left of freedom of speech everywhere. Thats how fascism works. It doesn't play by the rules.
-
Apparently the "there might not have been a drone" comment was a miscommunication, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714).
Got it-
Is this how democracy ends? The world deserves better than this.
-
At what point do you determine that there was no drone?
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence.
If there's no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to assume there was no drone.
-
Apparently the "there might not have been a drone" comment was a miscommunication, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714).
They certainly know how to handle the matter in a professional manner, calming the nerves of the public and quenching hysteria. This is rapidly turning into a textbook example of a clusterfuck.
-
The drone that was apparently found, if it contains some kind of onboard computer that computer likely contains some date information or logs- Whatever was on its memory cards should be informative.
How close was it found to the airport and also, was it close to any popular legal drone flying areas?
-
The drone that was apparently found, if it contains some kind of onboard computer that computer likely contains some date information or logs- Whatever was on its memory cards should be informative.
How close was it found to the airport and also, was it close to any popular legal drone flying areas?
Airports in most civilised countries have large exclusion zones surrounding them.
-
Got it-
Is this how democracy ends? The world deserves better than this.
Leave the tin foil hat insinuations at the door, please. Too many threads are polluted already.
-
People should know that 'national-security' is one of the only areas thats likely to be consistently exempted from changes in government procurement mandated by trade agreements.
So its entirely conceivable that many companies are panicking and see that as their only hope to remain plugged in to government spending.
Other spending will likely have to go through an e-tendering system that will favor countries with very low wages. (and they do get to use their own employees, although some countries limit this despite huge pressures to just let it reach its natural level, which could mean loss of literally millions of jobs-one estimate was 41% of all US jobs) so this may- its intended to, undercut wages a lot.
-
Mr. Scram, I think I'm just being realistic.
If you look at the most well informed writing on the current Brexit negotiations (with regard to the WTO in particular) the "survival" of commitments made by the UK as part of the EU and WTO are getting extensive discussion. They are being framed as a debt which the UK must in some way 'compensate' 'injured' nations for when they rejoin the WTO on their own. You can bet this 'compensation' is going to come in the form of jobs. At the same time the inflexible ideology of these little known deals is requiring the phasing out of safety net programs, because they have been reframed as temporary crutches, only to be kept while 'market based solutions' are worked out.
Read up on the events of the last 25-30 years specifically how the so called "rules based trading system" works.
-
Yep, they've been saying it was a drone for the last 20-ish hours, other than a few MSM articles no one seems to believe them.
I've always been suspicious of the (claim at a least), gov. not allowing the military to be involved for ~24 hours.
There seems to have been zero evidence against the 2 suspects, plus multiple people trying to contact the police with alibis for them, but they were still held for 36 hours.
Statement from them.
https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-24/claim-of-no-drones-at-gatwick-due-to-poor-communications-say-police/ (https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-24/claim-of-no-drones-at-gatwick-due-to-poor-communications-say-police/)
'Drone Sighting' Investigated By Police Turns Out To Be Lights On A Crane
http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-drone-sighting-investigated-turns-out-to-be-lights-on-a-crane-20181224 (http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-drone-sighting-investigated-turns-out-to-be-lights-on-a-crane-20181224)
https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-drones-police-communication-was-a-mess-up-say-ministers-11590916 (https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-drones-police-communication-was-a-mess-up-say-ministers-11590916)
-
People should know that 'national-security' is one of the only areas thats likely to be consistently exempted from changes in government procurement mandated by trade agreements.
So its entirely conceivable that many companies are panicking and see that as their only hope to remain plugged in to government spending.
Other spending will likely have to go through an e-tendering system that will favor countries with very low wages. (and they do get to use their own employees, although some countries limit this despite huge pressures to just let it reach its natural level, which could mean loss of literally millions of jobs-one estimate was 41% of all US jobs) so this may- its intended to, undercut wages a lot.
This thread is about drone sightings near an airport, not yet another place to inject trade agreements and wages into the discussion. Make a thread for those subjects and post about it there. Consistently spamming almost every other topic you participate in, dragging the thread off-topic isn't welcome. Please, this forum isn't here to serve your personal pet agenda points. Don't ruin it for others.
-
Yep, they've been saying it was a drone for the last 20-ish hours, other than a few MSM articles no one seems to believe them.
I've always been suspicious of the (claim at a least), gov. not allowing the military to be involved for ~24 hours.
There seems to have been zero evidence against the 2 suspects, plus multiple people trying to contact the police with alibis for them, but they were still held for 36 hours.
Statement from them.
https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-24/claim-of-no-drones-at-gatwick-due-to-poor-communications-say-police/ (https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-24/claim-of-no-drones-at-gatwick-due-to-poor-communications-say-police/)
'Drone Sighting' Investigated By Police Turns Out To Be Lights On A Crane
http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-drone-sighting-investigated-turns-out-to-be-lights-on-a-crane-20181224 (http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-drone-sighting-investigated-turns-out-to-be-lights-on-a-crane-20181224)
https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-drones-police-communication-was-a-mess-up-say-ministers-11590916 (https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-drones-police-communication-was-a-mess-up-say-ministers-11590916)
It's a fairly good example of why police forces should be conservative when it comes to releasing personal details of suspects to the public. You can bet these people will feel the impact of these events for a while to come. History unfortunately shows that people can act very unreasonable towards people like these, even when it's blatantly clear they have nothing to do with it. Threats and actual violence aren't uncommon.
-
This thread is about drone sightings near an airport, not yet another place to inject trade agreements and wages into the discussion. Make a thread for those subjects and post about it there. Consistently spamming almost every other topic you participate in, dragging the thread off-topic isn't welcome. Please, this forum isn't here to serve your personal pet agenda points. Don't ruin it for others.
I agree. Please respect the topic of the thread and show some respect for those who are trying to talk about a specific topic.
Now, I agree Brexit is a very interesting topic and I would welcome anyone interested to open a thread where we can discuss it. There, not here.
-
Cdevs posts are at least entertaining, while posts about his posts are annoying. If you dont' like them, just ignore him.
People should know that 'national-security' is one of the only areas thats likely to be consistently exempted from changes in government procurement mandated by trade agreements.
So its entirely conceivable that many companies are panicking and see that as their only hope to remain plugged in to government spending.
Other spending will likely have to go through an e-tendering system that will favor countries with very low wages. (and they do get to use their own employees, although some countries limit this despite huge pressures to just let it reach its natural level, which could mean loss of literally millions of jobs-one estimate was 41% of all US jobs) so this may- its intended to, undercut wages a lot.
This thread is about drone sightings near an airport, not yet another place to inject trade agreements and wages into the discussion. Make a thread for those subjects and post about it there. Consistently spamming almost every other topic you participate in, dragging the thread off-topic isn't welcome. Please, this forum isn't here to serve your personal pet agenda points. Don't ruin it for others.
-
Cdevs posts are at least entertaining, while posts about his posts are annoying. If you dont' like them, just ignore him.
Well, posts about his posts about his posts are doubly annoying. If you don't like them just ignore them :)
I find it poor form to hijack threads with your pet topics because the hijack can drown out the intended topic of the thread. It's just rude and it makes conversations difficult. What's wrong with opening another thread on the new topic?
-
Cdevs posts are at least entertaining, while posts about his posts are annoying. If you dont' like them, just ignore him.
I can't exactly ignore them, as they're everywhere. I've asked the moderation team to look into it. They may agree, they may not. I'll accept whatever decision is made. This means we don't have to derail the thread even further. Move along! ;D
-
I can't exactly ignore them, as they're everywhere.
In your Profile you've got a "Buddies/Ignore List" which sort of works.
I agree with most of cdev's posts, nearly everything, including how/if drones are detected at airports has a quite large political side to it.
-
Something is fishy about this whole ordeal. Drone rules are EXTREMELY strict, at least here in Canada and also in the US, not sure about the UK. But some of the rules have very specific distances, like not being more than 75 meters from people, houses, roads etc or not going higher than 90m. They obviously need to have the technology to measure and track that if they're going to make those rules. I have a hard time believing that airports and authorities are not equipped to fully track a drone and the operator. They made the rules, they obviously will want to be able to enforce them. Tracking a drone operator would not even be that hard since RC controllers are ominidirectional, they could just triangulate and find the source of the controller signal. Or if they only want to take down the drone then they can just RF jam it or capture it with one of those drones that can throw a net.
But all that said... now they're saying it was not even a drone? How can you go from "we saw a drone in the sky" to "there was nothing". Wonder if this is like the equivalent of a "bomb threat" where someone calls in false information and it was never even based on actual visual cues from the get go. Or is there more to it. I'm not one for conspiracies but something does seem fishy about this.
Heck if you're shutting down the airport anyway then why could cops not just use a drone themselves to try to track down this one. The batteries are going to die eventually, just follow it home.
-
At what point do you determine that there was no drone?
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence.
If there's no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to assume there was no drone.
Ok, but would you not agree that if 60+ individuals claim to have seen a drone, that that would constitute something beyond reasonable doubt? It certainly would in a court.
However, I am fully aware of the fact that human memory is only marginally dependable, and that one individual is enough to easily sway and distort memories of an entire group. Countless media presentations of a drone should be more than enough to convince everybody who saw a distant bird that they were looking at a drone, so it only takes one or two false sightings to launch mass hysteria.
Video related to memory manipulation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWO2UQ4MW7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWO2UQ4MW7U)
-
Ok, but would you not agree that if 60+ individuals claim to have seen a drone, that that would constitute something beyond reasonable doubt? It certainly would in a court.
However, I am fully aware of the fact that human memory is only marginally dependable, and that one individual is enough to easily sway and distort memories of an entire group. Countless media presentations of a drone should be more than enough to convince everybody who saw a distant bird that they were looking at a drone, so it only takes one or two false sightings to launch mass hysteria.
Video related to memory manipulation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWO2UQ4MW7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWO2UQ4MW7U)
As you say, all those sightings may not be enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You'd really need to ask a mass psychology expert about this, but the common sense approach may very well give unreliable results.
-
The crisis deepens! :scared:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/drones-close-gatwick-airport/?action=dlattach;attach=605230;image)
(Edit... and yes, for those who need it, it was a joke)
-
It's a fairly good example of why police forces should be conservative when it comes to releasing personal details of suspects to the public. You can bet these people will feel the impact of these events for a while to come. History unfortunately shows that people can act very unreasonable towards people like these, even when it's blatantly clear they have nothing to do with it. Threats and actual violence aren't uncommon.
Police didn't release their identity, neighbours told the press who they were...fairly hard to ignore police raiding a detached house in an otherwise quiet neighbourhood.
-
The crisis deepens! :scared:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/drones-close-gatwick-airport/?action=dlattach;attach=605230;image)
There are immigrants, some of whom maybe terrorists or criminals coming into Britain and they're worried about a plastic toy boat.
-
Methinks it is not drones flying overhead but jokes going right over people's heads. :)
-
Police didn't release their identity, neighbours told the press who they were...fairly hard to ignore police raiding a detached house in an otherwise quiet neighbourhood.
It's a bit more roundabout, but it's still releasing information. While I'm not suggesting not to execute a search warrant to protect the identity of a suspect, mitigating the impact wouldn't be a terrible idea.
-
While I'm not suggesting not to execute a search warrant to protect the identity of a suspect, mitigating the impact wouldn't be a terrible idea.
I would start by demanding some responsibility on the part of the media.
-
While I'm not suggesting not to execute a search warrant to protect the identity of a suspect, mitigating the impact wouldn't be a terrible idea.
I would start by demanding some responsibility on the part of the media.
They exist in a legal form in the UK and Australia but there has to be will on behalf of the Police, Judiciary or the people themselves (at their expense) have to do it. Trial by Media is much quicker than a gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order
-
They exist in a legal form in the UK and Australia but there has to be will on behalf of the Police, Judiciary or the people themselves (at their expense) have to do it. Trial by Media is much quicker than a gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order
Even before any gag order the media have certain responsibility and should be held accountable. Generally there are provisions so that the media cannot identify the victims of rape and this does not require a judicial gag order. People who are "persons of interest" but have not been formally charged should be similarly protected. And if some newspaper decides they will sell more papers by damaging the reputation of a private person then they can share their profits with the person who's reputation suffered. A substantial award for damages ought to do it.
-
There are immigrants, some of whom maybe terrorists or criminals coming into Britain and they're worried about a plastic toy boat.
There are also Non Immigrants, some of whom are terrorists and criminals. Just for a little balance. ;)
I agree the threat of Kmart Plastic boats to shipping is definitely real and might block a water intake or cause micro plastics to be released after being propellerised :-DD
-
Even before any gag order the media have certain responsibility and should be held accountable. Generally there are provisions so that the media cannot identify the victims of rape and this does not require a judicial gag order. People who are "persons of interest" but have not been formally charged should be similarly protected. And if some newspaper decides they will sell more papers by damaging the reputation of a private person then they can share their profits with the person who's reputation suffered. A substantial award for damages ought to do it.
You have to remember this is the British Media we are talking about. We Aussies are truly sorry for sharing Murdoch around the World :palm:
-
There are immigrants, some of whom maybe terrorists or criminals coming into Britain and they're worried about a plastic toy boat.
There are also Non Immigrants, some of whom are terrorists and criminals. Just for a little balance. ;)
I agree the threat of Kmart Plastic boats to shipping is definitely real and might block a water intake or cause micro plastics to be released after being propellerised :-DD
Sorry about that. I should have chosen my words better to include everybody crossing the channel illegally.
-
Sorry about that. I should have chosen my words better to include everybody crossing the channel illegally.
We won't mention the Irish 'troubles' and it's members who travelled legally or Finsbury Park or Joe Grant's murderer or .... either :( A balanced view is what is important and picking a minority without that balance isn't seeing reality.
-
Heck if you're shutting down the airport anyway then why could cops not just use a drone themselves to try to track down this one. The batteries are going to die eventually, just follow it home.
Just one little matter of finding it - and then being able to keep up with it. Even with FPV, a target drone would only need to execute a couple of evasive manouvres for a chase aircraft to lose sight.
Location and tracking of such a small object in the sky is not a trivial challenge.
-
Cdevs posts are at least entertaining, while posts about his posts are annoying. If you dont' like them, just ignore him.
I can't exactly ignore them, as they're everywhere.
You can block individual user posts. There is no excuse for responding to someone and then complaining you can't help it.
-
This thread had better get back on track pretty quickly...
-
What kind of damages do you think the drone can do if it hit an aircraft?
For example:
Assuming hit it the metal on the outside at speed would it smash to pieces on impact and do no harm to the aircraft?
What is the worst that can happen to the aircraft?
-
What is the worst that can happen to the aircraft?
It crashes to the ground.
-
Obviously it depends on the materials and size of the drone. There are some really big things out there.
It could break the windshield, killing the pilot and crashing the plane.
It could break the propeller on a small monoprop, forcing the landing (not immediately fatal, but still dangerous, depending on the phase of the flight).
It could be sucked into the turbofan engine (airliners are capable of flying on a single engine, but having one explode on you is certainly an emergency).
-
Also - while less likely - you might have penetration of the aircraft skin that might cause damage to internal systems. Any damage to pressurised zones would not be a problem at altitudes where you're likely to encounter them - but would prevent a flight from cotinuing.
Even less likely (but not impossible) would be foreign objects (drone bits) interfering with control surfaces.
Then there's the possibility of instrumentation sensor damage - such as angle of attack sensors, pitot tube - and radio antennae. For that, it might be best to ask the NTSB - or a ground engineer - as to the sort of impact damage they already see from birds ... and tiny helium balloon transmitters that people launch.
-
Much as some of this has been covered already here is a couple of reports about Drone impact studies. Do date there has been precisily ZERO injuries or deaths from Drone Strikes to full sized aviation however over the years R/C aircraft and in particular Helicopters have done damage and death to humans not in aircraft :( This doesn't of course cover nation states use of drones as weapons adding to the impression of danger :rant:
There are others but these are an idea on danger. Chances of a strike has been calculated in the hundreds of years but that allows for both sides obeying the rules.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/11/29/drone-strike-harmful-bird-strike-different-standards-needed/ (https://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/11/29/drone-strike-harmful-bird-strike-different-standards-needed/)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628092/small-remotely-piloted-aircraft-systems-drones-mid-air-collision-study.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628092/small-remotely-piloted-aircraft-systems-drones-mid-air-collision-study.pdf)
-
Much as some of this has been covered already here is a couple of reports about Drone impact studies. Do date there has been precisily ZERO injuries or deaths from Drone Strikes to full sized aviation however over the years R/C aircraft and in particular Helicopters have done damage and death to humans not in aircraft :( This doesn't of course cover nation states use of drones as weapons adding to the impression of danger :rant:
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
Drone is a fitting name for those remotely piloted air planes that fly around and spy/execute people. Probably nicknamed so by some journalist who had watched too much Star Wars, but still seems somewhat fitting in that context.
The conspiratorial part of me has begun suspecting that calling multicopters drones and getting the public worked up over them might be a way to take away attention and criticism away from military drones. (Of course, it's most likely just because of the usual click-bait journalism).
Anyway, now they are writing about how Swedish police is buying new "anti-drone" equipment for millions because of this... someone is making a lot of money. Of course, not a word in the local news about the fact that there likely never was a drone at Gatwick. :palm:
-
Yep, they've been saying it was a drone for the last 20-ish hours, other than a few MSM articles no one seems to believe them.
I've always been suspicious of the (claim at a least), gov. not allowing the military to be involved for ~24 hours.
There seems to have been zero evidence against the 2 suspects, plus multiple people trying to contact the police with alibis for them, but they were still held for 36 hours.
Statement from them.
https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-24/claim-of-no-drones-at-gatwick-due-to-poor-communications-say-police/ (https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-24/claim-of-no-drones-at-gatwick-due-to-poor-communications-say-police/)
'Drone Sighting' Investigated By Police Turns Out To Be Lights On A Crane
http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-drone-sighting-investigated-turns-out-to-be-lights-on-a-crane-20181224 (http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-drone-sighting-investigated-turns-out-to-be-lights-on-a-crane-20181224)
https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-drones-police-communication-was-a-mess-up-say-ministers-11590916 (https://news.sky.com/story/gatwick-drones-police-communication-was-a-mess-up-say-ministers-11590916)
It's a fairly good example of why police forces should be conservative when it comes to releasing personal details of suspects to the public. You can bet these people will feel the impact of these events for a while to come. History unfortunately shows that people can act very unreasonable towards people like these, even when it's blatantly clear they have nothing to do with it. Threats and actual violence aren't uncommon.
They can always do a cliff richard and sue - not! i really don't understand why suspects details are revealed so freely. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. This country is a mess.
-
i really don't understand why suspects details are revealed so freely. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.
As has been mentioned upthread it was not the police who revealed the information. The search operations were "detected" by the media who then went to question the neighbors about the occupants of the house being searched.
In my view the greatest responsibility lies with the media. It would be nice to have neighbors who mind their own business and who do not divulge information but that would mean people having a social level which is just impossible to achieve.
But the media should be prevented from revealing private information about private people going about their private business and should pay damages to those private people who they expose without very good justification. If the media who published the information were to now pay a substantial sum to the exposed couple maybe the couple would feel somewhat remedied and maybe the media would think twice next time around.
This country is a mess.
The whole world is a mess. Always was, always will be. But the mess we have now is a better mess than in the past. Technology improves our possibilities and human nature remains always the same. That is where the problem lies.
-
Well Cliff Richard won against the media but I guess these guys don't have the money. anyone starting a crowd funder? I'd contribute to their legal costs, the biggest problem with this country after the politicians is the media.
-
One newspaper story implied lights on cranes, that was 6 miles away, together with a "miscommunication" from a senior police officer and all of a sudden there were never any drones. From reading what Surrey police had to say on a facebook post I would say drones were involved.
https://www.facebook.com/ReigateBansteadPolice/posts/2210916058928345 (https://www.facebook.com/ReigateBansteadPolice/posts/2210916058928345)
As for a lack of pictures, police don't carry cameras and how many plane spotters would you expect to see on a damp overcast weekday ? Probably none. As for the technology used the airport authorities are obviously going to remain tight lipped but details might leak out in due course. Just have to see how this one pans out.
-
I'd have hoped that after the first sighting anyone that knew how to use a DSLR competently would be drafted in to work shifts to get a picture next time it came out. Yes getting pictures would be hard, i know that from the few times I have taken photos of aeroplanes or tried to but it appears that they have hardly tried. Without a decent picture how do you get half an idea as to what the thing is and what it has or how it operates.
-
Well Cliff Richard won against the media but I guess these guys don't have the money. anyone starting a crowd funder? I'd contribute to their legal costs, the biggest problem with this country after the politicians is the media.
Please, really. Just don't go there! :palm:
-
There were reports of the drone flying around the control tower.
Reports of it flashing it's lights at the police.
Reports that it comes back when they're about to open the airport.
The boss man of the airport saying to a TV reporter "While I'm speaking to you there's a drone over my airfield".
But despite 100s of cameras not a single captured image of anything, pull the other one. :)
-
Whoever operated it was clearly listening to the news.
-
But despite 100s of cameras not a single captured image of anything, pull the other one. :)
People can be very, very suggestible and a speck in the sky can easily become a drone if someone else tells you that is what it is. This is probably just one more case of UFO.
Historically people have reported seeing things that are clearly impossible and yet they are absolutely certain that is what they saw.
I would expect the authorities to be more objective and not start burning witches at the first report of women flying on brooms. It seems in this case the authorities may well have been taken in like everybody else.
-
You have to remember this is the British Media we are talking about. We Aussies are truly sorry for sharing Murdoch around the World :palm:
Again? Murdoch AND the ugly stinkin' possums AND that evil, disgusting brown spread? Serial perps!
-
It sounds like they were not investigating it properly before the chaos and depending on information from phone calls or tip offs.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gatwick-drone-police-urged-step-13777809 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gatwick-drone-police-urged-step-13777809)
There are calls for the Metropolitan Police to take over the Gatwick Airport drone probe from Sussex Police
Joshua Taylor
12:29, 26 DEC 2018
Police investigating the Gatwick Airport drone attacks have been urged to step aside after being accused of "messing up" the investigation.
Sussex Police has come under fire for its handing of the investigation into drone flights that plunged the country's second biggest airport into chaos just days before Christmas.
Innocent Paul Gait, 47, and Elaine Kirk-Gait, 54, were arrested then released without charge a day later. They later said they felt "completely violated".
Then a senior police officer claimed there may never have been any drones flying over Gatwick at all - only for the force to issue a 'clarification' statement afterwards.
A further drone 'sighting' later turned out to be lights on top of a crane.
There are now calls for Scotland Yard to assume control of the investigation. And ministers are understood to be furious at how the Sussex Police investigation was "messed up".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-drones-never-existed-sussex-police-investigation-footage-couple-released-a8697306.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-drones-never-existed-sussex-police-investigation-footage-couple-released-a8697306.html)
Peter Stubley 3 days ago
Police do not have any footage of the flying machines at the airfield and are relying on accounts from witnesses and the discovery of a damaged device.
Asked about speculation there never was a drone, he said: “Of course, that’s a possibility. We are working with human beings saying they have seen something.
The detective said the arrests made on Friday night were the result of a tip-off from a member of the public.
He insisted the investigation was not “back to square one” and added: “We have a number of lines of enquiry and persons of interest. We are still progressing those lines of
enquiry, including house-to-house enquiries around the sightings of the drone.”
They could have sent a team out first without announcing it on the news to observe and see if the claims were true rather than after the chaos and maybe they would have had a better chance of catching the real culprits if there were drones to be found.
The calls could be pranks from the same people flying the drones.
-
Indeed it appeared to be a mess. It felt like the arrests were out of panic to show they were making progress.
-
"Police investigating the Gatwick Airport drone attacks "
Yeah, drone Attacks. Attacks. What a piece of garbage.
-
"Police investigating the Gatwick Airport drone attacks "
Yeah, drone Attacks. Attacks. What a piece of garbage.
This is the UK. The only defence the police in the UK have is big talk.
-
There is a video somewhere on utube about a facility where they train falcons to catch small quadcopters and bring them to the trainer. So may be an option.
Bud having terrible ideas again! besides the gun the quad chopper blades will meat grind the falcons wings etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBBC-xL_MTg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBBC-xL_MTg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg6_k6nBn70 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg6_k6nBn70)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b93H5U6bcVI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b93H5U6bcVI)
Realy like to see Buds pet falcon trying to take this machine gun mounted heli down!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ttSwYNspw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ttSwYNspw)
-
[conspiracy theory]
Some black ops flight needed to stop over, and the drone excuse was perfect, how in this world no one took a single photo?
It happened in other airports and there are tons of photos, and now, not even a blurry one.....
[/conspiracy theory]
Read the Ars article about this :-DD
-
It has already happened
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/)
-
It has already happened
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/)
At least they had the decency to add 'possible' to the title. And as yet they still don't know if it was a drone, bird or something else.
-
It has already happened
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/)
At least they had the decency to add 'possible' to the title. And as yet they still don't know if it was a drone, bird or something else.
I used to be a recreational pilot and was around aircraft for many years. Bird strikes are unmistakable for anything else. There is always bird residue on the aircraft, often enough to immediately determine the species even without DNA analysis. On the impacted aircraft that I witnessed the blood/guts smears were obvious. One a windscreen the other a leading edge.
-
Unless it was a frozen chicken as the urban myth goes with the chicken gun :-DD
In this case and based on some confirmed drone near misses around airports shooting video :palm: this may be the first alleged case of a strike with a plane. As I have said through this thread regulations and systems won't stop determined idiots.
It is still funny how the near miss over Spain between two jets a month or so back hardly made a ripple worldwide (I certainly didn't see it at the time anywhere) but an alleged drone anything is a world headline.
-
Strange. some months ago I have read up some sources of drone hazard, also on airports, counter measures, even tests of radar back scatter of commercial drones.
what I think: the gatwick airport team and the police has made the most damage in all. period. They have simply freaked out. okay, beside the regulations of operating a drone in UK (and EU) there are similar as described in Canada and US. (100m to important infrastructure, masses of people, private property etc., max 100m flight "level", in controlled zones max 50m, around airports 0m within 1,5km from airport. Drones below 250gr are free to fly (w/o license).
The biggest commercial drones are like DJI Phantom: max 100km/h fast, max 2500m high, max 30min airtime, max 3500m (CE) radio range., 3kg weight, 0,7kg payload (Cam), 60cm square size, cost about $4000.
Most quadcopter are way below this. In opposite some facts about bird strike tests: a "large bird ingestion test– at least one 3,65 kg bird body is fired with 360 km/h at a running engine".
Okay birds are not made of metal, but breaking down the impact by size and weight, a avarage drone makes not as much damage as a 2kg bird.
Drone sightings and even collisions where reported: even at Heathrow ( as I remember). There are rare, but there are already there.
Okay, how to fetch such a drone? The israel press has at least 2016, 2017 and 2018 claimed(!) to shoot down a syrian drone in the northern golan heights with a Patriot missle (hehe: $2mio missle to combat $50 drone. :-DD)
I have also found a report from june 2014 about such a waste of money.
How to find? Radar back scatter of a large drone is around 0.05m at 24Ghz and 0.02m for a small drone (found in some test). this is the same size of a bird on a radar scope.
Most (if not all) commercial drones are radio controlled by ISM 2.4Ghz or 5 GHz.
there are many manufacturers with jamming eqipment with transmission power of 40W (400 times the power of the legal drone radio), some civil offered systems are able to jam from 200kHz to 8Ghz with spectrum analizer watched in realtime.
Military systems have much more to offer.
On the other side:even the russians got attacks by several self-made drones with explosives at the same time on more than one occasion in syria (Hmeimim and Tartus) this year.
Okay: all these values say: Even If there was a drone, the shut down of the airport was way too much panic. This kind of reaction is something i would expect, if someone will bloat this thing up.
Next: no Radar backups show some distinct drone / bird filght, no photos where made, no cctv cam footage (remember the ridiculous camera per resident ratio the britains have)... no one has seen the drone fly away, only disappearing...
What if there is a small military drone hovering 24 hours and 2000 feet?
-
An interesting test 'possibly' relevant to this topic. Drone vs wing.
https://youtu.be/QH0V7kp-xg0
-
I'd consider that very relevant.
-
The piss off about this "incident" is that they will use it as an excuse to further restrict drones/model aircraft even more - even if there was not even any drone involved. :palm: This only hurts hobbyists who have common sense and won't hurt idiots who will fly drones in bad places anyway.
One of the rules here in Canada is so vague that they are basically banned anywhere. Instead of telling people to look at ADS-B, and visually look for planes, etc and generally use common sense, they just make it so you can't fly anywhere that an aircraft can land or take off. Helicopters can land on pretty much any flat surface, so drones are not legal in those places. Water planes can land anywhere in a lake, so drones are illegal over any lake, etc... Instead of just telling people to use common sense and punishing those who don't they just have these ridiculous blanket rules.
I'm thinking this whole thing was just a plot to demonize the drone/RC aircraft hobby. Yes, drones can cause a danger to planes, but go and punish idiots that are actually flying them near planes instead of making ridiculously restrictive rules that punish even people with common sense.
Really I would not be against having a licensing scheme for model aircraft (drones etc...), different license grades would allow you to do more like the advanced tier could even allow long range flights and higher altitudes, but you would have certain requirements like an ADS-B transponder/TCAS, parachute etc.
-
Canadas rules were a complete knee jerk in the last round of changes and the powers that be weren't listening to the Drone or R/C fliers at all >:(
An interesting test 'possibly' relevant to this topic. Drone vs wing.
Interesting to see but it is a sample of one with a direct dead centre hit % chances of that happening over a glancing blow are very low. Bird Strike in particular with a flock chances go way up.
-
It has already happened
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/)
Nope, that was a radome collapse caused by pressure differential. Media speculated it was a drone strike, people repeat it on social media, and now it has become "a fact" when in reality it is part of the seething mass of fake news. :palm:
-
While drones can be dangerous, they arn't any more dangerous than birds and the whole thing is blown way out of proportion. Also when they say a "drone incident" a lot of them (like this one) arn't even drones, and some may be drones that are very far away. For example an aircraft flying at 37,000 feet spots the lights from a drone flying at 500 feet, that's considered a "drone incident". The drone may be flying illegally being that high but is nowhere near the aircraft.
-
Just for a moment sometime in teh future, lets assume there was reports of a drone, but no body had any photos of it, so it was disregarded. Then a real drone, flew into the path of a departing A321, which had just lifted off, and it was ingested into one of the turbofans, causing catastrophic damage. The aircraft manages to do an emergency landing on one engine and no body was injured.
What happens to the controller who made the decision to not to close the runway?
Lets up the anti, and the plane for some reason did'nt make a safe landing and somone was hurt.
As a passenger what would you like the controllers to do? Everything else in aviation is extremely risk adverse.
-
i wonder if it will be standard procedure for tanks to carry beehive, shotgun or airburst rounds to take these things out if they are mounted with bazookas.
It seems like you might want another short ranged anti air turret to take out close in drones. and now soldiers are going to have to walk around tank mounted robot controlled close in weapons systems.
thats gotta suck, its going to be risky to be anywhere near the tank in case its AI fucks up or it decides to blow up a shaped charge that would normally just effect the tank. once a m247 decided to target a toilet because the vent fan was bad. i wonder if a cell phone might decide to make a autogun fire on you.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/02/time-military-paid-anti-aircraft-gun-locked-onto-toilets/ (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/02/time-military-paid-anti-aircraft-gun-locked-onto-toilets/)
-
While drones can be dangerous, they arn't any more dangerous than birds and the whole thing is blown way out of proportion.
One thing a UAV has that a bird doesn't is a solid lump of unyielding metal in the form of the motors - and a quadcopter has 4 of them. Each one can be a damaging projectile. The instantaneous forces imparted at impact will be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than anything a bird can offer.
And this is based on stock standard consumer UAVs. Who's to say what a nut case might mount on one if their intent was malicious.
While care should be taken so as to not overreact, being dismissive here is more dangerous, IMHO.
-
Cui bono
-
The largest and most significant mass in an impact is the battery pack, not the motors. At least for this type of UAV. A gas-powered fixed-wing RC model would produce the same reaction, probably at a lower cost and with longer flight time.
No amount of laws or rules can prevent a deliberate act. So long as the UAV is pre-programmed (even holding a compass heading would be good enough for a single pass), launched from far enough away, and is considered disposable, tracking down those responsible is extremely difficult.
-
Just for a moment sometime in teh future, lets assume there was reports of a drone, but no body had any photos of it, so it was disregarded. Then a real drone, flew into the path of a departing A321, which had just lifted off, and it was ingested into one of the turbofans, causing catastrophic damage. The aircraft manages to do an emergency landing on one engine and no body was injured.
What happens to the controller who made the decision to not to close the runway?
Lets up the anti, and the plane for some reason did'nt make a safe landing and somone was hurt.
As a passenger what would you like the controllers to do? Everything else in aviation is extremely risk adverse.
Same as someone calling in a bomb scare. They search but don't find a bomb. Then one explodes a few hours after everyone is back inside after the evacuation.
-
It has already happened
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/)
Nope, that was a radome collapse caused by pressure differential
After some research I think you're right, it explains why there's no bird or quad-copter bits or scratches. I didn't know these radomes could so easily self-collapse due to weather damage and air pressure.
-
https://twitter.com/MemoryHold/status/1078728650575564805
-
https://twitter.com/MemoryHold/status/1078728650575564805
The timing is surprising, but considering how long these deals typically take it doesn't really seem related. You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to use these kinds of tactics in your negotiations too.
-
The largest and most significant mass in an impact is the battery pack, not the motors. At least for this type of UAV.
It's not just the mass that needs to be considered - it's the rigidity of the structure. A battery pack may weigh more, but it will deform more readily than the rigid metal components of a motor. Deformation allows for the impact energy to be spread over a longer period, reducing the impulse force.
That's not to say the battery pack isn't a risk - it most certainly is - but a motor would most likely be the first point of impact, causing penetrating damage. The battery pack would then follow, along with other motors, causing more carnage.
The more I think about this, the more the actual permutations of what damage could be done to wings, control surfaces, engines, instrumentation, cockpit windows and anything else, means that I should not try to address these in detail. I'll leave that to the testing facilities and the NTSB (or equivalent in your country).
-
Yes, the chance of their being a catastrophic disaster is remote - but it is not zero. With the increase in the use of UAVs of all types, especially quad copters, the risk is increasing. With the aviation industry being extremely risk averse, this is a major issue.
With all the difficulties in devising, implementing and enforcing controls, there is an understandable feeling of pointlessness from some quarters - but if we don't take some steps, we will never find our way to a practical solution.
Throwing our hands up and saying it's all too hard is not going to be any consolation if an aircraft is taken down by a quad copter. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you write out, say, 300 letters of condolence to the families of those who would perish in one .... just leave the names blank for the moment.
-
I think it's a matter of trust, but verify. An airfield like Gatwick is full of observers, on the ground, in the tower, and in aircraft. It takes no effort at all to put out a radio call "suspected UFO in vicinity of runways, please look and report back". Action can be taken depending on whether the suspected sighting can be verified or not.
Shutting an airfield and causing chaos because "someone" saw "something" definitely seems like an overreaction.
-
I think it's a matter of trust, but verify. An airfield like Gatwick is full of observers, on the ground, in the tower, and in aircraft. It takes no effort at all to put out a radio call "suspected UFO in vicinity of runways, please look and report back". Action can be taken depending on whether the suspected sighting can be verified or not.
Shutting an airfield and causing chaos because "someone" saw "something" definitely seems like an overreaction.
Yeah exactly they should have had people on actual lookout, not just go by 2nd hand information from some unreliable source. Sadly, this is also why SWATing works, they take some info from some random person on the internet with zero thing to back it up and treat it as true, and go in someone's house guns blazing. It's actually pretty scary that people of authority can make major decisions based on bad information without first verifying it.
-
It has already happened
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/ (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/14/mexican-passenger-jet-damaged-in-possible-midair-drone-hit/amp/)
At least they had the decency to add 'possible' to the title. And as yet they still don't know if it was a drone, bird or something else.
I used to be a recreational pilot and was around aircraft for many years. Bird strikes are unmistakable for anything else. There is always bird residue on the aircraft, often enough to immediately determine the species even without DNA analysis. On the impacted aircraft that I witnessed the blood/guts smears were obvious. One a windscreen the other a leading edge.
Thanks for the notice. Bag of avian innards and feathers mix will be included to the payload.
-
I think it's a matter of trust, but verify. An airfield like Gatwick is full of observers, on the ground, in the tower, and in aircraft. It takes no effort at all to put out a radio call "suspected UFO in vicinity of runways, please look and report back". Action can be taken depending on whether the suspected sighting can be verified or not.
Shutting an airfield and causing chaos because "someone" saw "something" definitely seems like an overreaction.
Flightradar24 was showing many ground vehicles and fire trucks driving round all over the site like crazy all day, presumably on the lookout
-
What a mess!
Gatwick drones: Sussex Police 'sorry' for arrested couple (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46709353)
Gatwick drone investigation: Police admit drawing blank in hunt for those responsible for disrupting 1,000 flights (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-airport-flights-drone-suspect-police-sussex-christmas-travel-latest-a8702931.html)
Gatwick latest: Drone sightings near airport 'may have been of police equipment', chief constable admits (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-devices-found-near-airport-ruled-out-of-involvement-with-christmas-flight-a4026791.html)
-
We are indeed a mess of a country and with 'austerity" showing ourselves up no end. So no one wants to tell us on what evidence the falsely accused were arrested as clearly there was none other than the ignorance of the police in probably believing some lies they were told.
-
What a mess!
Gatwick drones: Sussex Police 'sorry' for arrested couple (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46709353)
Gatwick drone investigation: Police admit drawing blank in hunt for those responsible for disrupting 1,000 flights (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-airport-flights-drone-suspect-police-sussex-christmas-travel-latest-a8702931.html)
Gatwick latest: Drone sightings near airport 'may have been of police equipment', chief constable admits (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-devices-found-near-airport-ruled-out-of-involvement-with-christmas-flight-a4026791.html)
It's getting to a point where the actual truth wouldn't make things any clearer any more.
-
Yeah, you couldn't make it up.
Police Admit Some Gatwick Sightings May Have Been Their Own Drones. :palm:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/drones-found-near-gatwick-ruled-out-of-disrup/ (https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/drones-found-near-gatwick-ruled-out-of-disrup/)
"Mr York said he was "absolutely certain that there was a drone flying throughout the period that the airport was closed"."
I'm quite sure there wasn't. :), unless he means the police's own drones and helicopters.
https://twitter.com/edwilde/status/1075555700452061184 (https://twitter.com/edwilde/status/1075555700452061184)
An old one.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9066337/CCTV-police-officer-chased-himself-after-being-mistaken-for-burglar.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9066337/CCTV-police-officer-chased-himself-after-being-mistaken-for-burglar.html)
-
i am afraid that all the weaponry and tools left to our police forces is "BIG talk". When I pointed this out on the local police facebook group I was banned from it. Hit the nail on the head I guess.
-
i am afraid that all the weaponry and tools left to our police forces is "BIG talk". When I pointed this out on the local police facebook group I was banned from it. Hit the nail on the head I guess.
You know what happens when you come between men and their toys. It's also an example of how discourse is altered to only include people within a certain bandwidth. No wonder there's extremism and lack of empathy for "the other side". People are secluding themselves ever more, even if they live amongst each other.
-
It was more of the case they did not want the truth pointing out. The police, police more by constructing perceptions or trying to than by actually doing policing because they are so thin on the ground.
-
They arrested an innocent couple, one phone call to confirm the guy was at work and couldn't have done it.
I can't believe the Sussex Police have absolutely nothing.
It's like a Benny Hill episode with a nightmare for the common folk.
-
I would argue that the greatest risk a drone poses is to helicopters as an impact on the rotor would almost 100% be fatal to all on-board the copter. A copter would be at risk if the rotor hit a large bird but a smaller bird should be survivable -- a drone, OTH, would be more likely to damage the rotor sufficiently that it would either break apart or become so unbalanced that the copter would shake itself to pieces. Additionally, copters are more likely to fly at lower altitude and therefore operate in the same airspace as drones.
I own drones and frequent a forum like this but for the Phantom drone, and the thing that really gets me is that even on a board like that we get numb-nuts that think planes and helicopters are immune from drone strikes owing to a pressure wave in front that will push them away. You can ask them how planes hit birds and they have no comeback -- they are not thinking and instead convinced themselves they should be able to do whatever they want. These idiots will be the reason for prohibitive restrictions that we all know are coming.
The Gatwick issue is hard to get a handle on as there were pictures and video of a drone that has been reported to be over Gatwick, but if the police and other authorities are now saying they're not sure if there were drones then who the hell was behind the pictures and videos we've already seen attributed to the "Gatwick Attack"!
Brian
-
I own drones and frequent a forum like this but for the Phantom drone, and the thing that really gets me is that even on a board like that we get numb-nuts that think planes and helicopters are immune from drone strikes owing to a pressure wave in front that will push them away. You can ask them how planes hit birds and they have no comeback -- they are not thinking and instead convinced themselves they should be able to do whatever they want. These idiots will be the reason for prohibitive restrictions that we all know are coming.
oh, so they have no idea of how the machines they themselves fly work :palm:
-
I would argue that the greatest risk a drone poses is to helicopters as an impact on the rotor would almost 100% be fatal to all on-board the copter. A copter would be at risk if the rotor hit a large bird but a smaller bird should be survivable -- a drone, OTH, would be more likely to damage the rotor sufficiently that it would either break apart or become so unbalanced that the copter would shake itself to pieces. Additionally, copters are more likely to fly at lower altitude and therefore operate in the same airspace as drones.
I own drones and frequent a forum like this but for the Phantom drone, and the thing that really gets me is that even on a board like that we get numb-nuts that think planes and helicopters are immune from drone strikes owing to a pressure wave in front that will push them away. You can ask them how planes hit birds and they have no comeback -- they are not thinking and instead convinced themselves they should be able to do whatever they want. These idiots will be the reason for prohibitive restrictions that we all know are coming.
The Gatwick issue is hard to get a handle on as there were pictures and video of a drone that has been reported to be over Gatwick, but if the police and other authorities are now saying they're not sure if there were drones then who the hell was behind the pictures and videos we've already seen attributed to the "Gatwick Attack"!
Brian
What makes you think a drone strike would be "almost 100% fatal", ignoring that combination is a bit of an oxymoron? Considering how even large birds flying into the rotors of small helicopters don't seem to be a massive issue and how the blades of helicopters are designed to deal with impacts due to phenomena like hail, a drone strike doesn't appear to be that dangerous.
-
I would argue that the greatest risk a drone poses is to helicopters as an impact on the rotor would almost 100% be fatal to all on-board the copter. A copter would be at risk if the rotor hit a large bird but a smaller bird should be survivable -- a drone, OTH, would be more likely to damage the rotor sufficiently that it would either break apart or become so unbalanced that the copter would shake itself to pieces. Additionally, copters are more likely to fly at lower altitude and therefore operate in the same airspace as drones.
A few years ago, i was 'duty pilot' at the aeroclub ( its a flash name for having to sit at reception, answer the phone, do flight following etc etc, not very flash).. I heard a may-day on the radio and it was our chopper ( Schwatz 300C ). He was climbing through about 500' on a departure from the field, when he had massive vibration occur. His only choice was to down power. Forutnatly the pilot on board, was excpetionally skilled and expereinced and was able to auto-rotate it down onto a golf course green and other than scaring a couple of golfers no other damage was experience suffered. What caused the vibration. The tape on the leading edge of one of the blades had come loose. it must have only been a few grams of tape. Imagine if things hadnt been so 'perfect'.. ( 30seconds later and he would have been over the sea ).
Imagine what a 5kg drone woudl do.
-
It is possible that some of the drone sightings that forced London's Gatwick Airport to close for nearly two days in the week before Christmas were of police drones which were themselves hunting the malicious drones which shut the airport, a senior UK police officer has said.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday, Giles York, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police said he could not rule out the possibility that some sightings of drones reported during the incident were of drones that Sussex Police had flown over the airport for surveillance purposes.
-
A few years ago, i was 'duty pilot' at the aeroclub ( its a flash name for having to sit at reception, answer the phone, do flight following etc etc, not very flash).. I heard a may-day on the radio and it was our chopper ( Schwatz 300C ). He was climbing through about 500' on a departure from the field, when he had massive vibration occur. His only choice was to down power. Forutnatly the pilot on board, was excpetionally skilled and expereinced and was able to auto-rotate it down onto a golf course green and other than scaring a couple of golfers no other damage was experience suffered. What caused the vibration. The tape on the leading edge of one of the blades had come loose. it must have only been a few grams of tape. Imagine if things hadnt been so 'perfect'.. ( 30seconds later and he would have been over the sea ).
Imagine what a 5kg drone woudl do.
Tape on the leading edge coming loose likely causes air to delaminate, which means the entire area behind it loses lift. Considering the opposing blade won't have this issue, you'll inevitably get vibrations. It's possible the delaminated air is also causing havoc for blades subsequently coming through the same air.
-
It is possible that some of the drone sightings that forced London's Gatwick Airport to close for nearly two days in the week before Christmas were of police drones which were themselves hunting the malicious drones which shut the airport, a senior UK police officer has said.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday, Giles York, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police said he could not rule out the possibility that some sightings of drones reported during the incident were of drones that Sussex Police had flown over the airport for surveillance purposes.
Because if we were properly funded we would have dedicated police drones that are identifiable like any other emergency service vehicle is identifiable from an off the shelf one but with under-funding and a total lack of fore-site they just bought some commercial drone that now cannot be distinguished from the drone it is looking for.....
-
It is possible that some of the drone sightings that forced London's Gatwick Airport to close for nearly two days in the week before Christmas were of police drones which were themselves hunting the malicious drones which shut the airport, a senior UK police officer has said.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday, Giles York, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police said he could not rule out the possibility that some sightings of drones reported during the incident were of drones that Sussex Police had flown over the airport for surveillance purposes.
Because if we were properly funded we would have dedicated police drones that are identifiable like any other emergency service vehicle is identifiable from an off the shelf one but with under-funding and a total lack of fore-site they just bought some commercial drone that now cannot be distinguished from the drone it is looking for.....
We are smart folks, i figured we could build them some blue and white flashing leds? But wait theres now a police car at 200'
This gets more comical as it goes on. :box:
-
I think I hear Yaketty Sax playing in the background.
-
They arrested an innocent couple, one phone call to confirm the guy was at work and couldn't have done it.
I can't believe the Sussex Police have absolutely nothing.
It's like a Benny Hill episode with a nightmare for the common folk.
Just because you're miles away working with others and can prove it, and don't even own quad-copter, doesn't mean you're safe - from your neighbours and the police. I doubt if any R/C or quad-copter enthusiast around there is safe.
If that was one of their strongest leads, imagine what the other leads are like!
-
A I always said i think they were desperate to make "an arrest" to save face.
-
I would argue that the greatest risk a drone poses is to helicopters as an impact on the rotor
Actually, the main rotors are incredibly tough, having been designed and tested to survive bird strikes. Generally they just chop even large birds (a wild goose could be 15 lbs) into pieces and that's it, although cleaning and inspection are called for later.
Strikes aren't limited to rotors, of course. The most serious bird strikes on helicopters are when the bird smashes through the canopy, with results ranging from confusion to an injured or unconscious pilot. There's a reason you nearly always see helmets with eye protection on helicopter pilots.
-
I would argue that the greatest risk a drone poses is to helicopters as an impact on the rotor would almost 100% be fatal to all on-board the copter. A copter would be at risk if the rotor hit a large bird but a smaller bird should be survivable -- a drone, OTH, would be more likely to damage the rotor sufficiently that it would either break apart or become so unbalanced that the copter would shake itself to pieces. Additionally, copters are more likely to fly at lower altitude and therefore operate in the same airspace as drones.
I own drones and frequent a forum like this but for the Phantom drone, and the thing that really gets me is that even on a board like that we get numb-nuts that think planes and helicopters are immune from drone strikes owing to a pressure wave in front that will push them away. You can ask them how planes hit birds and they have no comeback -- they are not thinking and instead convinced themselves they should be able to do whatever they want. These idiots will be the reason for prohibitive restrictions that we all know are coming.
The Gatwick issue is hard to get a handle on as there were pictures and video of a drone that has been reported to be over Gatwick, but if the police and other authorities are now saying they're not sure if there were drones then who the hell was behind the pictures and videos we've already seen attributed to the "Gatwick Attack"!
Brian
What makes you think a drone strike would be "almost 100% fatal", ignoring that combination is a bit of an oxymoron? Considering how even large birds flying into the rotors of small helicopters don't seem to be a massive issue and how the blades of helicopters are designed to deal with impacts due to phenomena like hail, a drone strike doesn't appear to be that dangerous.
The risk to planes is there but not as high as it is for helicopters -- I made that clear in my first post. Helicopters are at greater risk because the propulsion and lift come from the same mechanism -- the rotor. Rotors are not weak things, mind you, as they need to support the weight of the copter and also tolerate expected impacts from hail, inspects, and small birds. They are not, however, designed to tolerate larger impacts and a large bird like a Canada Goose would pose a serious risk to downing the copter. If a copter loses power it can in many cases land by auto-rotating, but when you are missing one of the rotor blades there is no chance at all -- none! The damage to a rotor does not have to go so far as to shatter it, thought that would surely be the end, but even losing a piece of the tip or having significant deformation will so severely imbalance the rotor that flight is no longer possible. Planes are less at risk because the lift and propulsion are provided by two different things -- not so with a copter.
Brian
-
Actually, the risk to planes is much less because they spend most of their time flying above the birds.
Helicopters spend a great deal of their operational lifetime at bird heights.
-
Imagine what a 5kg drone would do.
Most drones are no-where near that heavy, more like 400grams.
A 5kg drone is an expensive bit of kit used for commercial ops, we're talking $15,000, the operators of which are going to be following the regulations.
-
Supposedly, from November any quad-copters over 250g will have to be 'registered' in the UK. Of course some of these drones only ever make a couple of flights around the living room or back garden.
It's not clear how this is going to make airports safer. What are they going to do if someone says they've seen a drone near an airport, round-up 10,000 kids from around the airport, have long prison sentences for kids that haven't registered their drone. :horse:
Something must be done, here's something, it must be done!
-
well they will be skipping the bit where anyone wanting to cause this sort of havoc will build there own and evade the regulation with legal loopholes.
-
The risk to planes is there but not as high as it is for helicopters -- I made that clear in my first post. Helicopters are at greater risk because the propulsion and lift come from the same mechanism -- the rotor. Rotors are not weak things, mind you, as they need to support the weight of the copter and also tolerate expected impacts from hail, inspects, and small birds. They are not, however, designed to tolerate larger impacts and a large bird like a Canada Goose would pose a serious risk to downing the copter. If a copter loses power it can in many cases land by auto-rotating, but when you are missing one of the rotor blades there is no chance at all -- none! The damage to a rotor does not have to go so far as to shatter it, thought that would surely be the end, but even losing a piece of the tip or having significant deformation will so severely imbalance the rotor that flight is no longer possible. Planes are less at risk because the lift and propulsion are provided by two different things -- not so with a copter.
Brian
The risk of hitting a drone doesn't seem to be larger than the risk of hitting sizeable hailstones, as the blades are designed to survive exactly that. I could find one story of a helicopter striking an actual and somewhat sizeable drone and it managed to fly and land safely with a dented blade. See the link below. Even if you lose part of a blade it's not going to be a comfortable or very pleasant ride, but the stories I can find about helicopters losing significant parts of their blades in non drone related accidents seem to indicate that it's far from game over. You want to avoid it if you can help it, but helicopters wouldn't be where they are today if they were as easy to crash as people always seem to think.
https://www.wired.com/story/drone-plane-collision-damage-study/ (https://www.wired.com/story/drone-plane-collision-damage-study/)
-
"will build there own"
I'm sure if you searched for 'quad auto-pilot' nearly all of them wouldn't have any fixed geo-fencing.
But even now day's later, there's still commentators on TV talking of the expertise needed to hack it, and some of them seem to think geo-fencing is some force field that has to be set up around the airport. :o
-
The commentators are always deeply incompetent and very unintelligent people. I once heard an "expert" interviewed by the BBC that basically claimed that your "smart fridge" could be spying on you the moment you power it up.
-
DJI is one of the leads with Geo Fencing but as I stated much earlier in this thread there is a software hack to remove it from the system. Its best use is as a warning or preventing normal flight to pilots and the locations of fixed or temporary closures to airspace when it is in the system. It should never be regarded as any sort of security or safety mechanism.
DJI has a system in place allowing for some registered users to apply and have it switched off for particular activities for a start. No one with criminal or malicious intent is going to go down this path due to the paper trial.
-
We are smart folks, i figured we could build them some blue and white flashing leds? But wait theres now a police car at 200'
I've seen that several times - but with blue and red lights. Once it was low enough that I could have thrown a rock mandarin at it (not that I would)....
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/abaca0bfc0a1e6d26ccfb72c842b92d1)
-
I would argue that the greatest risk a drone poses is to helicopters as an impact on the rotor would almost 100% be fatal to all on-board the copter. A copter would be at risk if the rotor hit a large bird but a smaller bird should be survivable -- a drone, OTH, would be more likely to damage the rotor sufficiently that it would either break apart or become so unbalanced that the copter would shake itself to pieces. Additionally, copters are more likely to fly at lower altitude and therefore operate in the same airspace as drones.
A few years ago, i was 'duty pilot' at the aeroclub ( its a flash name for having to sit at reception, answer the phone, do flight following etc etc, not very flash).. I heard a may-day on the radio and it was our chopper ( Schwatz 300C ). He was climbing through about 500' on a departure from the field, when he had massive vibration occur. His only choice was to down power. Forutnatly the pilot on board, was excpetionally skilled and expereinced and was able to auto-rotate it down onto a golf course green and other than scaring a couple of golfers no other damage was experience suffered. What caused the vibration. The tape on the leading edge of one of the blades had come loose. it must have only been a few grams of tape. Imagine if things hadnt been so 'perfect'.. ( 30seconds later and he would have been over the sea ).
Imagine what a 5kg drone woudl do.
That helicopter was designed pre 1956, and is tiny. And there I was thinking an Alouette was small, but it is massively bigger, and I know from experience that they survive much worse impact damage, and having impacts, including a couple of pilots who came back with bullets inside the engine, let alone lots of shredded tree. I can see that losing the blade tape on such a small frame would be major, but as the major function of the tape is to absorb impact from small debris and sand erosion larger more modern helicopters have a much better blade.
From a structural point the main rotor is not the weakest point, it is very robust, and in general the front facing is incredibly energy absorbent material, with the tape there as a sacrificial material to prolong blade life. Changed blade tape on one 2 days in a row, it went out that night into a hailstorm at 300m AGL for a casevac, and stripped almost all of it off, but was otherwise fine mechanically, though there were a few more dings on the panels that needed some work.
As to the blue and white, I used to trundle that Messerschmidt Bravo 109 out every morning to the flight line from it's parking lot, and leave the wheels back in the designated spot for them. Moving it was easy, clip on the wheels and grab the tail to lift it and push, and watch out for the rotors on the doors, and avoid the other helicopters in the area.
-
I wouldn't really mind if i had to pay a one-off $100 drone licence to fly anything over say 350g.
But i would expect to get some additional rights over the current 'hobby' rules.
(eg Flying at night, or being able to fly above clouds around mountains where there should not be any planes.)
I think we need 3 classes
a Toy Hobby class, so kids can fly little toys under a weight/height limit
a Recreational class where you pay one off $XXX to sit a paper/online test and get a licence to fly your 1kg drone within the rules
a Professional Business class costing more for people who fly drones to make a living.
That way anyone flying a full drone or plane will have a licence that can be checked by police/park rangers.
If they cant produce a licence they can be arrested.
If they're seen doing anything against the rules their licence number can be recorded and a report filed.
Registering drone aircraft is pointless as one person could have 20 drones in various states of repair.
Buy registering pilots makes a lot more sense.
Having a small cost of entry would remove a large number of idiots from the pool.
And being able to check licences makes it easier for law enforcement / park rangers
-
Imagine what a 5kg drone would do.
Most drones are no-where near that heavy, more like 400grams.
A 5kg drone is an expensive bit of kit used for commercial ops, we're talking $15,000, the operators of which are going to be following the regulations.
As someone that actually owns drones I can tell you that aside from the toy models which do exist and are plentiful but with very limited flight times and range, the typical drone used by adults is way more than 400g. The DJI Phantom series of drones, by far the most common of the non toy drones, is about 1400g with the battery alone being about 470g. The DJI Inspire series of drones, a step up from the Phantom series and very popular with more serious drone users, is about 3.4kg before adding the gimbal and camera and more like 4kg with gimbal and camera.
Brian
-
As someone that actually owns drones I can tell you that aside from the toy models which do exist and are plentiful but with very limited flight times and range, the typical drone used by adults is way more than 400g. The DJI Phantom series of drones, by far the most common of the non toy drones, is about 1400g with the battery alone being about 470g. The DJI Inspire series of drones, a step up from the Phantom series and very popular with more serious drone users, is about 3.4kg before adding the gimbal and camera and more like 4kg with gimbal and camera.
You are also missing the point. More serious drone users are going to follow the rules, because they don't want to get fined or have their kit destroyed in a collision. It's the kids dicking about with cheap drones who are the problem, not adults.
India has gone one step further than geo-fencing, Drone owners in India must get government approval before every flight (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187868-drone-owners-in-india-must-get-government-approval-before-every-flight/). Of course, that doesn't stop unauthorised use, just makes it harder for legitimate users.
-
You are also missing the point. More serious drone users are going to follow the rules, because they don't want to get fined or have their kit destroyed in a collision. It's the kids dicking about with cheap drones who are the problem, not adults.
Factually incorrect it's the adults with no clues that are causing the problems with near misses and abuse of the rules they are supposed to follow. Generally they are buying a drone in a lot of cases as their first R/C aircraft of any sort with ZERO background or clues as to what is or isn't the law let alone common sense entering their brains. As they have generally brought up the food chain of Drones a bit they are flying 800-1500g with ranges in the km ballpark.
Kids with toys and short ranges of those pose little or no risk to any aviation. Generally sub 500g and a few hundred meters range at most.
License, Registration whatever law you think may help still doesn't stop the determined or the terminally stupid.
-
You are also missing the point. More serious drone users are going to follow the rules, because they don't want to get fined or have their kit destroyed in a collision. It's the kids dicking about with cheap drones who are the problem, not adults.
India has gone one step further than geo-fencing, Drone owners in India must get government approval before every flight (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187868-drone-owners-in-india-must-get-government-approval-before-every-flight/). Of course, that doesn't stop unauthorised use, just makes it harder for legitimate users.
That's the problem with most rules. They just create a more arbitrary situation and allow law enforcement to harass legitimate owners who get entangled in the web of laws, whereas the reckless people aren't slowed down a bit.
-
Yes it's like it's illegal to buy a gun but not make one.
-
A radio controlled multi motor air device in mid air collides with a jet wing at high speed , the LiPo battery goes straight in then punctures the fuel bag while LiPo start to burn violently in a shower of jet fuel. :popcorn: I dont want to be a passenger on that flight.
-
I maintain that the rigid metal in the motors will do the penetration, rather than the more squishy battery material ... but other than that, your scenario is plausible.
... and I wouldn't want to be within 10 miles of that flight.
-
I think the video of the 'drone' entering the wing at high speed is what would happen at 30,000ft and
>500MPH. Nope just 238MPH.
If only the 'drone' was registered, it would have hopped out of the way of the wing. >:D
-
I saw some drones in china that had a petrol engine on them, ( it ran a generator, which provided the power for the motors ).. I guess it was 1200mm across and I belive had a flight time of several hours, It was marketed as a 'anti terror' drone and i saw pictures of it with shot guns attached to the bottom of it. It had a price ticket of $100k or so. ( a few years ago, sorry if the details are not exactly right )
That in the wrong hands could do some damage surely.
-
I think the video of the 'drone' entering the wing at high speed is what would happen at 30,000ft and >500MPH.
Don't think. Just watch the video.
Here, I turned on subtitles to get the closing speed used:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/drones-close-gatwick-airport/?action=dlattach;attach=609094;image)
Your speed figure is out by more than double.
-
There is no size limit on drones. In fact, the original drones circa 1930ish were simply regular aircraft fitted with remote controls so they could be flown remotely. That still happens to this day, most recently (that I know of) with F-16's, redesignated QF-16's. Prior to that we had F-4's converted to QF-4's, and F-106's converted to QF-106's. The Marines have automated some of their Hueys, allowing unmanned cargo runs.
And, of course, there's the purpose-built drones that eliminate the cockpit entirely that we all know about.
-
Your speed figure is out by more than double.
You guys are talking about completely different types of aircraft. A Mooney M20 is a 1950's design 4-seat single-engine unpressurized aircraft not flown over 300mph or 25000 feet. Most of them aren't equipped with oxygen, so will stay below 12000 feet. It was a good design, so good they're still building an updated version of them, but it's not a passenger airliner.
-
So the lives of people on a Mooney M20 aren't as important as those on a Boeing 737?
My point was that the damage shown in the video was done at 238 m.p.h. - not over 500 where the energy would be five times as great. Sure, you might want to see what happens to a section of Boeing 737 wing - and that's what will probably be required to resolve this question.
-
We also won't mention the Drone would need Infinite improbability drive to be in the same space as the leading edge of a wing at 30,000 ft for a start. ::)
As a thought exercise consider the logistics and probability of intentionally being in the right place with a slow moving object (100km/hr, 5-10m/sec climb rate and 3-4000m ceiling) trying to intercept the path of a reasonably fast moving one of even circa 200knots (370km/hr).
-
As a thought exercise consider the logistics and probability of intentionally being in the right place with a slow moving object (100km/hr, 5-10m/sec climb rate and 3-4000m ceiling) trying to intercept the path of a reasonably fast moving one of even circa 200knots (370km/hr).
That could be addressed with a swarm attack.
-
Then it's no longer cheap and not something a hobbyist would do by accident. If you have enough resources there are many ways you can take down an airliner.
-
Hi Group,
I was personally impacted by the Gatwick airport closure. I was inbound to LGW from Toronto on WestJet 003 that was due to land LGW about 8.50 am on the 20th. December.
First we heard of the drones was when we were about 20 minutes from landing in Gatwick. We circled around Chester for an hour, waiting for the airspace over LGW to open. It didn't open and when we were low on fuel we diverted to Glasgow.
Here are the flight paths from flightaware:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/drones-close-gatwick-airport/?action=dlattach;attach=609145;image)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/drones-close-gatwick-airport/?action=dlattach;attach=609151;image)
When we landed we cleared passport control and then went to baggage claim. Two counters were set up to deal with the 200 or so people on board. I didn't wait around. I figured it would take 90 minutes to get to the counter. Instead I took a taxi to the railway station and took a train to London.
I heard that the people who stayed slept in a hotel. The next day they boarded a special flight to LGW. This flight got to LGW circled for an hour and then returned to Glasgow unable to land at LGW. The plane left sometime latter and landed at LGW. I don't know the times of these flights.
I am out about 175 uk pounds ($225.00 USD) with little hope of recovering anything.
When (or if) they catch DroneBoy or DroneGirl I hope they get severely inconvenienced, and that is the polite version.
Regards,
Jay_Diddy_B
-
Drones definitely can cause damage, any material (even soft) going fast enough can damage something. You can put a ping pong ball right through a ping pong racket if it's shot at the right speed.
That said I think it's best to deal with this on a case per case basis instead of having all the ridiculous rules that restrict the hobby, and all the fear mongering. This incident was nothing but a stunt to cause fear of the hobby of drones/UAVs. (UAVs is probably the proper term to use but I'll just stick with drone)
One thing I do think they should do is make it so you have the option of setting up ADS-B on a drone, and registering it, and if you do that, you would have less restrictions, only requirements (such as avoiding aircraft, staying within so many meters of active aircraft etc). This could be fully automated in the drone's logic and allow for long range flights. Like how cool would that be if we were allowed to send a drone on a weather balloon and have it fly back down, and do other fun stuff like that. As long as you use common sense and do it safely I think stuff like that should be allowed. Only punish the ones that arn't careful, not everybody.
-
I am out about 175 uk pounds ($225.00 USD) with little hope of recovering anything.
Travel insurance?
-
rubber drones with aluminum motor windings
-
No trouble catching this guy - he put himself at the top of a 154ft tower! :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46720717 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46720717)
-
As someone that actually owns drones I can tell you that aside from the toy models which do exist and are plentiful but with very limited flight times and range, the typical drone used by adults is way more than 400g. The DJI Phantom series of drones, by far the most common of the non toy drones, is about 1400g with the battery alone being about 470g. The DJI Inspire series of drones, a step up from the Phantom series and very popular with more serious drone users, is about 3.4kg before adding the gimbal and camera and more like 4kg with gimbal and camera.
You are also missing the point. More serious drone users are going to follow the rules, because they don't want to get fined or have their kit destroyed in a collision. It's the kids dicking about with cheap drones who are the problem, not adults.
India has gone one step further than geo-fencing, Drone owners in India must get government approval before every flight (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187868-drone-owners-in-india-must-get-government-approval-before-every-flight/). Of course, that doesn't stop unauthorised use, just makes it harder for legitimate users.
Umm, no...
As I already said, I follow a Drone forum which is mostly serious and pro drone pilots but we get an unfortunately high number of our members professing there right to do whatever they please wherever they please. Many of them believe the bow wave in front of a plane, for example, will prevent a drone from hitting the plane.
Again, this is a serious forum like EEVBLOG but for drones and way too many of our members don't think they should be excluded from flying anywhere at anytime.
Brian
-
There is no size limit on drones. In fact, the original drones circa 1930ish were simply regular aircraft fitted with remote controls so they could be flown remotely. That still happens to this day, most recently (that I know of) with F-16's, redesignated QF-16's. Prior to that we had F-4's converted to QF-4's, and F-106's converted to QF-106's. The Marines have automated some of their Hueys, allowing unmanned cargo runs.
And, of course, there's the purpose-built drones that eliminate the cockpit entirely that we all know about.
The FAA rules, which have been turned upside down, but the rule relating to drone size is that anything under 25kg or about 55 pounds is governed by one set of rules and it's this set that the average Joe flying drones is suppossed to follow. The military have much larger drones and they are permitted in the US airspace, particularly along the southern border (please, lets leave that alone). So, in the USA there is a maximum size at it's 25kg.
Brian
-
No trouble catching this guy - he put himself at the top of a 154ft tower! :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46720717 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46720717)
Traffic was stopped on the M48 - the older of two Severn crossings - because of "concern for welfare," police said.
The man, in his 20s, came down voluntarily from the 47m (154ft) bridge tower and was arrested on suspicion of causing a public nuisance.
Highways England said it was deeply concerned and that "a person has put their life at serious risk".
They were concerned about his safety putting his life at risk but arrested him for causing a public nuisance despite coming down from the tower voluntarily.
-
So the lives of people on a Mooney M20 aren't as important as those on a Boeing 737?
My point was that the damage shown in the video was done at 238 m.p.h. - not over 500 where the energy would be five times as great. Sure, you might want to see what happens to a section of Boeing 737 wing - and that's what will probably be required to resolve this question.
And this is what I'm talking about ... even on a board with technically astute people we get way too many that, for one reason or another, don't what to know about the facts and would prefer there belief be validated without facts. I see this on the drone forums I follow and no matter how many times you smack them down for there mind numbing inability to think they continue to promote fiction as fact and fact as fiction. It isn't just politics that suffers this affliction.
Brian
-
There is no size limit on drones. In fact, the original drones circa 1930ish were simply regular aircraft fitted with remote controls so they could be flown remotely. That still happens to this day, most recently (that I know of) with F-16's, redesignated QF-16's. Prior to that we had F-4's converted to QF-4's, and F-106's converted to QF-106's. The Marines have automated some of their Hueys, allowing unmanned cargo runs.
And, of course, there's the purpose-built drones that eliminate the cockpit entirely that we all know about.
The FAA rules, which have been turned upside down, but the rule relating to drone size is that anything under 25kg or about 55 pounds is governed by one set of rules and it's this set that the average Joe flying drones is suppossed to follow. The military have much larger drones and they are permitted in the US airspace, particularly along the southern border (please, lets leave that alone). So, in the USA there is a maximum size at it's 25kg.
Brian
a) It should have been blatantly obvious I wasn't talking about laws, but the reality of the world.
b) So long as we're using the dictionary word "drone", you are referring to any of them, from military on down. If you want to refer to a specific subset, add qualifiers or use the right alphabet soup designations.
c) USA law is irrelevant in this case, although I'll grant that UK has something comparable.
d) Laws only stop the law-abiding. They have little effect on bad actors.
-
There is no size limit on drones. In fact, the original drones circa 1930ish were simply regular aircraft fitted with remote controls so they could be flown remotely. That still happens to this day, most recently (that I know of) with F-16's, redesignated QF-16's. Prior to that we had F-4's converted to QF-4's, and F-106's converted to QF-106's. The Marines have automated some of their Hueys, allowing unmanned cargo runs.
And, of course, there's the purpose-built drones that eliminate the cockpit entirely that we all know about.
The FAA rules, which have been turned upside down, but the rule relating to drone size is that anything under 25kg or about 55 pounds is governed by one set of rules and it's this set that the average Joe flying drones is suppossed to follow. The military have much larger drones and they are permitted in the US airspace, particularly along the southern border (please, lets leave that alone). So, in the USA there is a maximum size at it's 25kg.
Brian
a) It should have been blatantly obvious I wasn't talking about laws, but the reality of the world.
b) So long as we're using the dictionary word "drone", you are referring to any of them, from military on down. If you want to refer to a specific subset, add qualifiers or use the right alphabet soup designations.
c) USA law is irrelevant in this case, although I'll grant that UK has something comparable.
d) Laws only stop the law-abiding. They have little effect on bad actors.
Yes, I was talking about the USA and made that clear several times, but there are similar rules in most of the developed world. I'm uncertain of the precise limits in the UK but would expect them to be similar to the USA.
There are several classes of individual that pose a threat:
1. Clearly terrorist types are to be feared most
2. Other criminal elements might use drones as cover for other activity
3. Stupid people that don't think they need to see what the rules are and press on regardless
4. Knowledgeable people that think they don't need to follow the rules because they think they understand Physics better than Physicists -- it is this group that is most likely to result in the kinds of new regulations that could kill drones.
I see the 4th group all to often and they outnumber the other 3 groups combined but group 3 is not far behind.
Brian
-
I have been reading some of the comments on this thread and a few people have spotted the flaws with the current situation in the UK and the likely direction these will go as a result of recent incidents.
Firstly I actually use drones all of which are home builds using flight controllers based on open source software, so they can be easily modified to meet specific requirements, which means it is fair to say that most current countermeasure technology should be defeatable and that systems like geofencing are not implemented.
Further to this in order to carry imaging payloads most of these are over 5Kg as they carry batteries providing between 5 and 20Ahr at 22V, as well as being made using materials such as Carbon Fibre and 6082 Aluminium in order to provide durability and stiffness to the airframe.
This results in build cost that is below £1000, flight times of up to 40mins and a piece of hardware that could do some serious damage in an impact (although I would not condone such an irresponsible use of this type of equipment).
The problem is that we started out with fairly restricted rules on drone use from around 7 years ago, I was actually looking at a project involving their use back then and had some quite involved discussions with the CAA, all of which lead to the project being dropped as we would have had to get approval on a per flight basis and this was just not feasible, Since then the regulations were relaxed considerably making drone use practical again, but now we are back to increasing restrictions on drone use which for users like me are just unworkable as it is totally impractical to register the drones I use as they are continually being modified.
What would make more sense is to relax the regulations and push the education making it easier for those who want to use drones to do so responsibly, as the current track will just lead to an increase in unregulated drone use and as most of us are already aware if someone is going to pull a stunt like flying in restricted airspace or even worse, they are going to do it despite any rules that are put in place, just look at what happened in the UK by banning handguns that were legally held, it did not stop gun crime as those who are prepared to use hand guns do not care about the law, the same will happen with the use of drones.
Unfortunately it is a small minority who spoil it for the rest of us.
-
In the UK drones are restricted to 1km from an airport perimiter and 400ft. Don't you just mix'n match units :palm: It came into force in May 2018. I believe pilots and air traffic controllers had asked for a 5km restriction limit from airport boundaries when consulted but someone decided 1km was safe enough.
Anyway, another "drone" story that didn't make the headlines, a drone pilot carrying out an agricultural survey had to descend when Tornado's where observed flying in close proximity, drone pilot reported the incident. That's responsible flying :-+ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46633952 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46633952) I'm not so sure about flying Tornado's around, they're 40 year old aircraft and they can't even see drones, not surprising really they weren't designed to be looking out for something that small.
If we can't sort out "drones" then flying taxis aren't going to happen any time soon.
-
In the UK drones are restricted to 1km from an airport perimiter and 400ft. Don't you just mix'n match units :palm: It came into force in May 2018. I believe pilots and air traffic controllers had asked for a 5km restriction limit from airport boundaries when consulted but someone decided 1km was safe enough.
Anyway, another "drone" story that didn't make the headlines, a drone pilot carrying out an agricultural survey had to descend when Tornado's where observed flying in close proximity, drone pilot reported the incident. That's responsible flying :-+ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46633952 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46633952) I'm not so sure about flying Tornado's around, they're 40 year old aircraft and they can't even see drones, not surprising really they weren't designed to be looking out for something that small.
If we can't sort out "drones" then flying taxis aren't going to happen any time soon.
That's the responsible thing to do, but I honestly can't blame anyone who decides it's in their best interest to keep quiet. You wouldn't be the first to be slapped silly because they can.
-
and from New Zealand
A near miss with drone suspends Police helicopter operation.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/109688053/nearmiss-with-drone-suspends-auckland-police-eagle-helicopter-operations (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/109688053/nearmiss-with-drone-suspends-auckland-police-eagle-helicopter-operations)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGTgMkWqFGQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGTgMkWqFGQ)
-
Wow a talking head in a uniform drawing conclusions. Mexico wasn't a drone strike as was reported above. Omitted was any mention of near misses CAUSED by full sized aviation so biased reporting. Several of these were low level military flights at under 500' in the UK in particular (missed that it was mentioned above too). Several near misses with Helicopters taking sightseeing flights at or below 500' in the US, Australia and other places have been reported too.
As to the idiot Kiwi's flying at night it is banned in NZ as it is in Oz. Shame they won't be found and have their asses kicked.
-
Anyway, another "drone" story that didn't make the headlines, a drone pilot carrying out an agricultural survey had to descend when Tornado's where observed flying in close proximity, drone pilot reported the incident.
Back in October I visited lake Windermere in northern England with my family and we did all the touristy things like boat ride on the lake. While on the water several fighter aircraft passed several times flying north, very low, along the valley of the lake. I do not know what model but they could have been Tornados. We were in the middle of the lake but at the docks somene was flying a drone. I do not think there was any risk of collision and never really gave it any thought but now that I think about it in light if these events I guess there could have been some risk if the drone had been flying out in the middle of the lake.
By the way, is there an RAF base near by?
-
At 500 knots the UK is a small country ;)
There has been plenty of reported near misses over the years with military training flights in particular around the hills in the UK against R/C Gliders. There is some photos of these Jets below the ridge lines being flown from :o While they may have been 500' AGL a near miss was still the result and with such a high closure speed the Model or Drone pilot has virtually zero chance of getting out of the way.
-
That could be very interesting to watch as there are quite a few airbases in the area around Cambridge and apparently Amazon have been given the provisional go ahead to trial its delivery by drone service around an area near Cambridge.
Not sure how they are going to interact with low flying jets
-
Not sure how they are going to interact with low flying jets
Badly if they stray into commercial airspace.
Jets landing offer less risk as they’re throttled right back and their oversized Hoover’s aren’t sucking in anything from meters around so the likelihood of airframe impacts is greater, much like bird strikes but there’s still a risk of passing through the turbofan and a lesser risk of entering the jet engine core.
But unlike a bird strike fragments of a drone will damage the jet core due to the many stages, fine tolerances and RPM the core rotates at.
For a jet taking off, the risks are much higher as engines are @ 120+% and hoovering anything within reach and with the cost of just jet maintenance rebuilds at some $5m+ it’s no wonder the authorities want to keep commercial airspace free of drones, possibly fearing legal repercussions of not being able to provide safe airspace for commercial operation.
Once some ‘fogwit’ is proven to have intentionally damaged an aircraft with a drone a 10+km drone exclusion zone is likely to become the international standard which should be the case now !
-
One thing I do think they should do is make it so you have the option of setting up ADS-B on a drone, and registering it, and if you do that, you would have less restrictions, only requirements (such as avoiding aircraft, staying within so many meters of active aircraft etc). This could be fully automated in the drone's logic and allow for long range flights.
I think that is the sensible thing to do. Then governments could easily identify who's causing trouble and deal with them.
-
One thing I do think they should do is make it so you have the option of setting up ADS-B on a drone, and registering it, and if you do that, you would have less restrictions, only requirements (such as avoiding aircraft, staying within so many meters of active aircraft etc). This could be fully automated in the drone's logic and allow for long range flights.
I think that is the sensible thing to do. Then governments could easily identify who's causing trouble and deal with them.
Why? Anyone who is causing trouble or wants to won't have it on their drone or will find a hack to remove it. Like Geo fencing it only may improve safety not remove risk. There are plenty of examples of near misses with aircraft fitted with beacons now why would adding clutter and more intrusion into a full sized pilots or air traffic controllers life help?
Once some ‘fogwit’ is proven to have intentionally damaged an aircraft with a drone a 10+km drone exclusion zone is likely to become the international standard which should be the case now !
Australia is 5km, think the US is 5 miles. The UK's reduction to 1km was DUMB.
edit Link to some Low Down Jets below the hills 8) http://www.fast-air.co.uk/mach-loop-photography-090602/ (http://www.fast-air.co.uk/mach-loop-photography-090602/)
-
So a few non fliers may be better informed about what geofencing is or isn't this is my backyard. Not shown on the CASA map is the local model aircraft field which has a permanent NOTAM on it and sits well within the 5km limit to the local airport and should really be shown on a Drone App as a warning at least.
The Airport shown handles corporate jets and 20-30 seater turboprops and a fair bit of Helicopter traffic servicing offshore gas rigs. The CASA map is off their drone app and shows no go areas, warnings and advisories to users. It clearly identifies the emergency Helipad 500m from here but I am allowed to fly within those guidelines of 'get the hell out of the air if you hear or see a chopper'. The Airstrip located near the coast has the same level of restrictions and within 100m South of it I have done a heap of R/C Gliding on the sand dunes over the years.
From the DJI 'Geo Fenced' map you can clearly show the lack of fence right up to the Airport boundary so ZERO meters even with it enabled. This is not the case with all Airports in Australia by any means but is shows the shortcomings of relying on it.
The Geo fenced areas will no doubt be improved or change over time but clearly are not a fix or control mechanism.
-
Thank you very much for making me aware that this resource exists. been stuck using an old image for far too long.
-
Go cut some Drone laps around Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor (non geo fenced) and see who comes knocking ;) On CASA and DJI's app it is nicely identified as a POI :palm:
We need to invest some serious time and $$ into our Airmaps in Australia but overall CASA does very well by all parties.
-
I will say I have been half caught out by this map before, had some one yelling at me that I was in a no fly zone, and where very surprised that I had a printed off copy of the map. I marked off the area, but they mostly seemed to trust the map more than what they where preaching a few minutes before.
-
I've said my piece on this and now let me share I video I shot using a brand new DJI Phantom 4 Pro drone just over two years ago. The was in a remote area about 80km+ west of Salt Lake City and many km from anything approaching so much as a burg. I'd just taken off and was heading towards a nearby formation when I heard but did not see an aircraft. I quickly descended to about 10m and tried to locate where the sound was. After about 10 seconds I located it and sure enough it was heading right towards the formation I was heading towards. The small plane circled the formation and I was getting ready resume my flight when he continued around for a second loop. I dropped down still lower as by this time I couldn't count on him not heading closer to me and by my observation he'd descended to below 100m and maybe as low as 85m while cooking along at, about, 270kph give or take. As fast as he was going it had to be more of a sport plane. Anyway, you may see for yourself in this video -- action begins pretty near the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzs0nbwMCiU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzs0nbwMCiU)
Brian
-
Part of the problem seems to be that some or even many are working under the assumption that manned aircraft have some right to the sky. I would certainly agree with that around airports, but in other parts of the world that's not a given. It may be necessary to draw up rules to physically separate parties with conflicting interests, but it doesn't appear regulatory bodies or pilots are very willing to give up airspace to facilitate this.
-
Technically the Plane shown in Raptor1956's video should have been no lower than 500' AGL and the Drone should be no more than 400'. So there is a differential in the USA, Australia and most other countries that exists under the current rules. So the airspace is divided but not always adhered to. The act of dropping low is the best advice and action to avoid the possibility of a collision.
This is a case where the full sized plane most likely launched at a different altitude and may or may not have known an actual height AGL. More common usage of GPS fed navigation aids are improving this sort of thing but traditionally you relied on charts and setting barometric instruments prior to launch. The Phantom by way of comparison when switched on would have set a zero point so referenced above ground level from takeoff time and place.
So it is possible to innocently in the case of the light plane to be below 500' but they should err on the cautious side regardless of the remoteness. If they were at 100' (really obviously low) cutting laps numbers should be taken and photos lodged with the CAA in that case.
-
Technically the Plane shown in Raptor1956's video should have been no lower than 500' AGL and the Drone should be no more than 400'. So there is a differential in the USA, Australia and most other countries that exists under the current rules. So the airspace is divided but not always adhered to. The act of dropping low is the best advice and action to avoid the possibility of a collision.
This is a case where the full sized plane most likely launched at a different altitude and may or may not have known an actual height AGL. More common usage of GPS fed navigation aids are improving this sort of thing but traditionally you relied on charts and setting barometric instruments prior to launch. The Phantom by way of comparison when switched on would have set a zero point so referenced above ground level from takeoff time and place.
So it is possible to innocently in the case of the light plane to be below 500' but they should err on the cautious side regardless of the remoteness. If they were at 100' (really obviously low) cutting laps numbers should be taken and photos lodged with the CAA in that case.
It seems the aircraft was doing a scenic pass. If it got too low, it willingly took that risk. The responsibility of descending up to but not beyond the lower limit is the pilot's.
-
So it is possible to innocently in the case of the light plane to be below 500' but they should err on the cautious side regardless of the remoteness. If they were at 100' (really obviously low) cutting laps numbers should be taken and photos lodged with the CAA in that case.
Yes but.......it’s totally irresponsible for a pilot to not have lodged a flight plan and know the elevation of the terrain to be covered as to maintain correct and legal AGL.
If training for commercial aviation such behaviour = FAIL !
-
Aaaand there we go:
"Heathrow and Gatwick invest millions in anti-drone technology"
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/03/heathrow-and-gatwick-millions-anti-drone-technology
The article has all the buzz words, like radars, tracking, jamming and even lasers!
Also, no mention of autonomous fliers with preprogrammed routes that you can build for a ~100 of your favorite currency. Open source software included.
-
To funny not to share and wrong on some many levels :-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qt7t37QLM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qt7t37QLM)
-
Technically the Plane shown in Raptor1956's video should have been no lower than 500' AGL and the Drone should be no more than 400'. So there is a differential in the USA, Australia and most other countries that exists under the current rules. So the airspace is divided but not always adhered to. The act of dropping low is the best advice and action to avoid the possibility of a collision.
This is a case where the full sized plane most likely launched at a different altitude and may or may not have known an actual height AGL. More common usage of GPS fed navigation aids are improving this sort of thing but traditionally you relied on charts and setting barometric instruments prior to launch. The Phantom by way of comparison when switched on would have set a zero point so referenced above ground level from takeoff time and place.
So it is possible to innocently in the case of the light plane to be below 500' but they should err on the cautious side regardless of the remoteness. If they were at 100' (really obviously low) cutting laps numbers should be taken and photos lodged with the CAA in that case.
It seems the aircraft was doing a scenic pass. If it got too low, it willingly took that risk. The responsibility of descending up to but not beyond the lower limit is the pilot's.
Been away for a few days...
The rules in the USA (FAA) are that a pilot should not descend below 500 feet UNLESS it is a more remote location and away from people. That is, if you are in a remote location and there are no people or structures around then it is legal to descend below 500 feet. The location I was at is about 50miles from Salt Lake City and at least 15 miles from and significant settlement so on that basis it would be legal, however, there were people around the formation.
The interesting thing as an aviation buff is that this small plane was really cooking along -- much faster than a typical Cessna 152/172. I could not accurately make out the make/model of the AC, but I'd surmise it was a low wing sport plane and by my eye he'd dropped below 300 feet and was cooking along about 180mph or so -- much too fast for a Cessna 152/172.
I had another encounter with a fast moving low flying plane back in about 2006. I had hiked out to the Wahweap Hoodoos along the Wahweap River bed, which like most rivers in the desert are dry 360 days a year. The hoodoo formations are at the base of mesa about 150 feet tall that borders the dry river bead to the south and on the other side of the wash is another series of mesa's forming a valley about 1500 feet wide at this point. I heard a noise and when I looked I saw a large twin engine plane, perhaps 12-16 passenger, booking along the river at about the rim height and I'd guess moving at about 160mph or more. Thirty minutes later a helicopter came down and landed near me.
GPS: 37.16218N, 111.7056W
The coordinates for the formation in the video are: 40.7091N, 112.6845W
As you can see both places are pretty remote...
Brian
-
So it looks like they're using Rafael's Drone Dome system, radar and optical detection so that's going to be hard to avoid and jamming as a countermeasure. Makes a lot of sense, developed in Israel and tested by the army and probably RAF as well, it works, it does the job and high powered lasers are an add on option, maybe. It's a cat and mouse game and for now I think the cat is winning. Can smaller airports aford this system ?
According to Jane's we had already procured this system in August 2018, delivery times might be a problem :-DD
https://www.janes.com/article/82347/uk-signs-for-drone-dome-c-uas-system (https://www.janes.com/article/82347/uk-signs-for-drone-dome-c-uas-system)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles
The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid, is the name given by contemporary sources to the rumored enemy attack by Japan and subsequent anti-aircraft artillery barrage which took place from late February 24 to early February 25, 1942, over Los Angeles, California.
Initially, the target of the aerial barrage was thought to be an attacking force from Japan, but speaking at a press conference shortly afterward, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox called the incident a "false alarm". Newspapers of the time published a number of reports and speculations of a cover-up.
So I guess this was the "Battle of Gatwick".
-
Tonite @ 20:30.
The Gatwick Drone Attack
Panorama
With the most detailed account so far of the three days of disruption and the first in-depth interview with Gatwick since the attack, Justin Rowlatt asks what really happened. Why has no-one been caught? Was there a drone at all? And what needs to be done to protect our skies?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003vwg (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003vwg)
-
It's pretty hard to protect the skies from something that's not there.
Ban cranes within 50km of any airport!