Drones

The Enclosure · Post by **The Enclosure** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:12 am

Major disruption caused at Gatwick airport by some idiots flying drones over the airport.
Airport closed since 9 pm last night causing scores of flights being diverted.Some passengers kept on one diverted plane for 6 hours on the runway.
Airport authority believe this is a malicious act and has been going on all night.
What is the answer to this dangerous activity.?

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:14 am

Logged on to see if this was about the Mrs......

The Enclosure · Post by **The Enclosure** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:17 am

Hibsclaret wrote:Logged on to see if this was about the Mrs......

Just spit out my brew at that.

clitheroeclaret2 · Post by **clitheroeclaret2** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:42 am

Has caused absolute chaos, cant believe the government hasn't banned them.
Will it take a plane to come down before they do?

theroyaldyche · Post by **theroyaldyche** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:43 am

Hibsclaret wrote:Logged on to see if this was about the Mrs......

Best post in a while

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:08 am

Two drones can shut an airport down? And you can buy these things online whenever you like? I would imagine that the enviro-mentalists will be taking note.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:08 am

Drones are dangerous, the high safety standards within the aviation industry and a bit of luck have prevented an accident so far. However, it is only a matter of time until there is one and despite what a lot of people think, drones are more than capable of bringing down an airliner. I obviously have no idea who is responsible for the issues at Gatwick but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lone environmental activist. Whoever it is should be locked up for a long time, it's akin to driving the wrong way down a motorway in my book.

Pearcey · Post by **Pearcey** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:19 am

Time to bring in Vinnie Jones! Stan would give him a good reference!

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:22 am

Almost sure to be copy cat incidents. There are some morons out there.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:34 am

Surely the army must have some little guided missiles? Or just some rifles?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:58 am

I can see eventually, people needing a license to own one.

lesxdp · Post by **lesxdp** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:01 am

dsr wrote:Surely the army must have some little guided missiles? Or just some rifles?

Without doubt that should be the tactic the minute controlled airspace is crossed. I think if the operators are caught they would be charged with endangering aircraft which would mean jail on conviction. Needs to be stopped now before it becomes a regular thing for the morons out there.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:08 am

dsr wrote:Surely the army must have some little guided missiles? Or just some rifles?

There are non-kinetic ways of stopping 'drones'. The issue is a) getting hold of the kit, and b) making sure the systems don't disrupt legitimate electromagnetic spectrum users whoever they may be (ie taxi drivers etc).

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:12 am

box_of_frogs wrote:There are non-kinetic ways of stopping 'drones'. The issue is a) getting hold of the kit, and b) making sure the systems don't disrupt legitimate electromagnetic spectrum users whoever they may be (ie taxi drivers etc).

Or aeroplanes coming in to land, presumably.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:15 am

Most newer drones have Geofencing, GPS hardware with maps and preinstalled 'no-go' areas which make it impossible for the everyday person to fly into or ever take off in the wrong areas.
It sounds like these drone have been deliberately tampered with.

lesxdp · Post by **lesxdp** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:15 am

There are non-kinetic ways of stopping 'drones'. The issue is a) getting hold of the kit, and b) making sure the systems don't disrupt legitimate electromagnetic spectrum users whoever they may be (ie taxi drivers etc).

Therefore it must be easier to just shoot them out of the sky and not rely on electronics at all.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:16 am

dsr wrote:Surely the army must have some little guided missiles? Or just some rifles?

Exactly.
If the army / RAF can't take these out in a matter of minutes with guided weapons then it really makes you wonder what use we would be if we were under a "proper" attack.
Who needs nuclear weapons when the UK is brought to a standstill by a few drones?

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:18 am

dsr wrote:Surely the army must have some little guided missiles? Or just some rifles?

"Chris Woodroofe, the airport’s chief operating officer, apologised to passengers and said the drones could not be shot down because of the risk of stray bullets causing harm."

Miss and you've got a rifle bullet arcing downrange into who knows what...

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:22 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Exactly.
If the army / RAF can't take these out in a matter of minutes with guided weapons then it really makes you wonder what use we would be if we were under a "proper" attack.
Who needs nuclear weapons when the UK is brought to a standstill by a few drones?

They could easily if they wanted to but public safety is the issue, but yes launch a surface to air missile at Gatwick airport.

Put away your Daily Mail "reporters" hat.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:26 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Exactly.
If the army / RAF can't take these out in a matter of minutes with guided weapons then it really makes you wonder what use we would be if we were under a "proper" attack.
Who needs nuclear weapons when the UK is brought to a standstill by a few drones?

Because firing Brimstone missiles across Gatwick Airport is obviously the safest way to resolve this.

theroyaldyche · Post by **theroyaldyche** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:30 am

Wouldnt a plane jus smash thru a drone?

Fenwick · Post by **Fenwick** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:33 am

The engines wouldn't. Same as a bird strike I assume

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:34 am

Why can’t they just send there own drone up to bring it down or is that too simple

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:39 am

Have they not been talking about licencing these things for a while now?
I realise they have some great applications, but they seem a bit like fireworks. The kind of people who are attracted to them are the kind of people you would least trust in control of one

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:42 am

theroyaldyche wrote:Wouldnt a plane jus smash thru a drone?

No. It obviously depends on the weight of the drone and the speed of the impact. It is possible for a drone to smash straight through the windscreen of an airliner and strike the aircrew or it could be taken in by an engine. Whilst it could equally bounce off a wing etc the risk is there that it could bring an aircraft down so to continue to fly would be dangerous.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:46 am

Damo wrote:Have they not been talking about licencing these things for a while now?
I realise they have some great applications, but they seem a bit like fireworks. The kind of people who are attracted to them are the kind of people you would least trust in control of one

You require a drone pilots licence with the CAA if you want to use one Commercially eg: for film making, surveying etc.
Recreational drones have built in software to restrict flying to the allowed limits. These drone was been deliberately tampered with.

Soon any drone over 250g will have to be registered with the CAA and an online course taken, but the bill is not in effect yet.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:46 am

joey13 wrote:Why can’t they just send there own drone up to bring it down or is that too simple

You would remove the drone problem but potentially cause a foreign object debris hazard across part of the airfield which is just as dangerous.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:52 am

joey13 wrote:Why can’t they just send there own drone up to bring it down or is that too simple

They're highly maneuverable, trying to hit a drone into another drone which doesn't want to be hit would be very challenging and make the police look rather silly.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:55 am

CombatClaret wrote:
They could easily if they wanted to but public safety is the issue, but yes launch a surface to air missile at Gatwick airport.

Put away your Daily Mail "reporters" hat.

I think you missed my point, which is that surely our armed forces have the technology, sophistication and accuracy to bring something like this down in a controlled environment [i.e. on an airfield]?. I did use the term GUIDED weapons.
And as for the Daily Mail, if you read my posts, you'll know that I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail or a right wing agenda of any kind.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:56 am

CombatClaret wrote:They're highly maneuverable, trying to hit a drone into another drone which doesn't want to be hit would be very challenging and make the police look rather silly.

It's not a job for the police.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:00 am

nil_desperandum wrote:I think you missed my point, which is that surely our armed forces have the technology, sophistication and accuracy to bring something like this down in a controlled environment [i.e. on an airfield]?. I did use the term GUIDED weapons.
And as for the Daily Mail, if you read my posts, you'll know that I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail or a right wing agenda of any kind.

My apologies.

In reality, no, the army is designed to take on conventional warfare, planes v planes, tanks v tanks. A rifle would work but as mentioned if you miss you send a bullet off toward some village.
The army/air force doesn't have anything else small enough to be useful.
As for blocking the radio frequency, that's maybe possible but very difficult, like trying to block a cell phone but you've no idea where the caller is. Maybe they have something in the lab but they aren't going to roll it out for this.

This is why police have been experimenting with eagles, a safe and effective countermeasure is not obvious.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:01 am

nil_desperandum wrote:It's not a job for the police.

Unless it's declared an act of war I'd argue it is.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:03 am

CombatClaret wrote:"Chris Woodroofe, the airport’s chief operating officer, apologised to passengers and said the drones could not be shot down because of the risk of stray bullets causing harm."

Miss and you've got a rifle bullet arcing downrange into who knows what...

Is a spent bullet more dangerous than a spent firework? They send those into the air willy-nilly.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:03 am

CombatClaret wrote:They're highly maneuverable, trying to hit a drone into another drone which doesn't want to be hit would be very challenging and make the police look rather silly.

And they don’t look silly now ?

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:08 am

dsr wrote:Is a spent bullet more dangerous than a spent firework? They send those into the air willy-nilly.

Jeesseesus

A bullet isn't "spent", it's live until it hits something and is traveling at around 1,700 mph.

A firework (made of cardboard) has a max of 150mph.

JTClaret · Post by **JTClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:09 am

When I think of a drone, I think of an air version of a remote control car.

Can't they just throw a jumbo jet at it?
What would actually happen if the drone hit a plane? There's must be a reason otherwise the opinion would be... 'so'... but I don't know.

Inchy · Post by **Inchy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:09 am

I owned a drone for about 15 minutes until it ended up in roundhay lake. Biggest waste of 30!quid ever

JTClaret · Post by **JTClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:12 am

CombatClaret wrote:Jeesseesus

A bullet isn't "spent", it's live until it hits something and is traveling at around 1,700 mph.

A firework (made of cardboard) has a max of 150mph.

Be amazing if at night though... imagine you're flight gets delayed, but you get a fireworks display as they try and shoot down a drone.
It'd take the edge of the delay

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:14 am

I saw this video a while ago, the impact a drone can make hitting a plane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jump to about 1:40 for the damage

Masham Ale · Post by **Masham Ale** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:16 am

Reminded me of Stan's book when he told the story of Vinnie Jones going off the training field and shooting down a model aeroplane with a shotgun he'd hidden.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:29 am

CombatClaret wrote:Jeesseesus

A bullet isn't "spent", it's live until it hits something and is traveling at around 1,700 mph.

A firework (made of cardboard) has a max of 150mph.

If they're fired straight up, they both have to stop (gravity does that) before they come down. The 1,700 mph becomes irrelevant. Do you have any non-sneering information about bullets fired at an angle?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:37 am

Don’t worry, they’ve brought in some experts, it’ll soon be sorted.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:48 am

CombatClaret wrote:Unless it's declared an act of war I'd argue it is.

Surely precedent suggests that it doesn't have to be an act of war to involve the armed forces?
They've been used in all sorts of domestic emergency situations.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:49 am

dsr wrote:If they're fired straight up, they both have to stop (gravity does that) before they come down. The 1,700 mph becomes irrelevant. Do you have any non-sneering information about bullets fired at an angle?

Will it kill you, probably not. But it's the sort of thing that would and should ever be a police tactic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha ... ll-someone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:53 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Surely precedent suggests that it doesn't have to be an act of war to involve the armed forces?
They've been used in all sorts of domestic emergency situations.

So if bullets are out of the question on safety grounds, what will the army bring to the table, a large net?

beddie · Post by **beddie** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:05 pm

I don't have an answer apart from the law which should be changed so that anyone caught using one in the vicinity or perimiter designated by the Airport as a no go area gets 10 years in jail, they would then perhaps think about their actions beforehand. We're far too soft on this country.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:06 pm

Mrpotatohead wrote:You would remove the drone problem but potentially cause a foreign object debris hazard across part of the airfield which is just as dangerous.

Airport runways are checked for debris throughout the day

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:13 pm

joey13 wrote:Airport runways are checked for debris throughout the day

Yes, we once had to make an emergency abort of a landing just metres from the ground because they spotted what turned out to be a dead/ squashed rabbit on the runway!
We had to go back up for over 30 minutes at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to the airline whilst they cleared it up.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:22 pm

Lucky for us the drones aren't armed! Bizarre that they have not been brought down by some means.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:22 pm

Bloody Aliens get everywhere!