Drones

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:07 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:It must be pretty annoying when experts get ignored..........

Govt Policy
"I think that the people of this country have had enough of experts"

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:18 am

Hipper, it’s pretty unlikely tbh. A large drone may damage the leading edge, take an engine out or shatter the flight deck windscreen but it’s very unlikely to bring the aircraft down. However unlikely, the worst case scenario would be flight deck penetration which killed a pilot. Even with that, the other guy up there should still be able to land it. It can be argued that there is a very small chance that a very large drone could take out both pilots if it hit the aircraft in exactly the wrong spot, but such an occurrence would be considered to be well within the bounds of acceptable risk. Helicopters however, are a lot more vulnerable to such collisions and I can see why those guys would be more concerned about getting airborne.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:27 am

Been good discussion on it on LBC over the last hour.

Certainly no easy solution

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:32 am

What is more concerning is that the Global wrecking ball known as Amazon wants to deliver goods by drone. That is a particularly stupid idea but you can bet ‘experts’ on their payroll will be advising them that it’s the way forward.

Bullabill · Post by **Bullabill** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:36 am

LBC ?????

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:38 am

BennyD wrote:What is more concerning is that the Global wrecking ball known as Amazon wants to deliver goods by drone. That is a particularly stupid idea but you can bet ‘experts’ on their payroll will be advising them that it’s the way forward.

I'm sure people said similar things when planes were invented, with people worried that every plane that takes off will smash into another.

In Ohio, USA in 1895, there were only two cars on the road. They crashed into each other.

Things like this will always take time to tweak and improve. It could still very well be the way forward, it will just need improvements/tweaks along the way. That's what tends to happen where technology is concerned.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:49 am

I applaud your faith in technology but I still maintain it’s a dumb idea.

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:12 pm

Taffy on the wing wrote:Did you get a little thrill 'down below' after you posted that?
Those terrible environmentalists!

Yes.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:36 pm

: 9BA61A5D-B765-44AD-99EC-A82D5540D0A6.jpeg (108.71 KiB) Viewed 2606 times

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:36 pm

Bullabill wrote:y FactualFrank » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:08 pm

BennyD wrote:
And that would do what exactly? Apart from putting a hole in the wing the aircraft would still fly and be able to land.

What if it instead went through the window of the plane and killed a few people?

I don't have as much flying experience as Benny but I did do 21 years as a commercial airline Flight Engineer and I can assure you that there is far less chance of the cockpit window suffering that sort of damage than the wing leading edge. Cockpit windows are around 1" thick and are a glass/perspex/glass sandwich with the perspex heated to maintain it's tough, flexible state. Wing leading edge damage is a fairly common event and rarely seriously affects handling characteristics.

Quite a few cockpit transparencies are acrylic these days in an acrylic/vinyl/acrylic laminate (including almost all fighter jets). They are heated for de-mist and/or de-ice (depending on the thickness of the outside layer), not for structural integrity.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:21 pm

Heating them makes them more flexible and greatly improves their impact resistance. A windscreen at -40 would be a lot more brittle. Btw, all cockpit windows on our long haul aircraft are laminated glass

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:41 pm

It's all about; risk assessment, proportionate response and getting a consensus. Simple!!!!!!!!!

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:02 pm

If they look the same flying forwards or backwards, they’re known as ‘palindrones’.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:16 pm

Corky wrote:It's all about; risk assessment, proportionate response and getting a consensus. Simple!!!!!!!!!

Something that BALPA seem to ignore....

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:05 pm

Drone is back again. We need to get this Electronic fence that they use in Canada. Does not allow Drones within three miles of an airfield.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:07 pm

I hope they catch whoever is doing it and lock them up for the maximum 5 years.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:15 pm

It’s an unconfirmed drone sighting which means you don’t even need a drone now, you just ring in and tell them you’ve seen one. There’s too many jobsworths building empires at work now and nobody is willing to say “sod it, let’s keep flying”. Madness.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:30 pm

BennyD (or any other experts), why can't they shoot the drone down? Surely they can see on radar when no other planes are potentially in the line of fire? I guess it doesn't stop the drone controller going and buying another, but they aren't cheap.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:59 pm

BennyD wrote:Heating them makes them more flexible and greatly improves their impact resistance. A windscreen at -40 would be a lot more brittle. Btw, all cockpit windows on our long haul aircraft are laminated glass

The fronts most likely are. B and C windows maybe, depends on the manufacturer. I used to make them.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:00 pm

FactualFrank wrote:BennyD (or any other experts), why can't they shoot the drone down? Surely they can see on radar when no other planes are potentially in the line of fire? I guess it doesn't stop the drone controller going and buying another, but they aren't cheap.

Shoot it with what? What goes up, must come down! And that will still kill someone on the ground. The best kinetic option would be a shotgun from a helicopter. But that shot is still coming downhill at a fair rate of knots and so must be done over a controlled area.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:03 pm

FactualFrank wrote:BennyD (or any other experts), why can't they shoot the drone down? Surely they can see on radar when no other planes are potentially in the line of fire? I guess it doesn't stop the drone controller going and buying another, but they aren't cheap.

I’m not an expert and don’t profess to be, but it would appear the authorities don’t want to risk stray bullets, or even bullets that hit, carrying on and killing/injuring anyone when they land, however small that chance is.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:09 pm

box_of_frogs wrote:Shoot it with what?

I'd guess at a shotgun. The bullet from a shotgun travels around 400 feet. It's not so much the bullet in that case, it's where the drone could land if hit. But it depends on how high the drone will be flying.

As for your suggestion of flying a helicopter - that's worse than my suggestion of firing it down. What if the operator of the drone fancies flying into the rotor blades?

claret_in_exile · Post by **claret_in_exile** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:42 pm

A lot of modern drones have "no-fly zones" implemented into their programming - they literally cannot fly within a certain distance of "critical infrastructure".

Of course, it's possible to just hack that out of your control unit if you were so maliciously inclined.

I thought I read somewhere that the drone was considered "industrial in scale" - so standard measures to stop it won't work, hence they haven't stopped it yet. It's a malicious action rather than a spoilt schoolkid operating it from their back yard.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:56 pm

FactualFrank wrote:I'd guess at a shotgun. The bullet from a shotgun travels around 400 feet. It's not so much the bullet in that case, it's where the drone could land if hit. But it depends on how high the drone will be flying.

As for your suggestion of flying a helicopter - that's worse than my suggestion of firing it down. What if the operator of the drone fancies flying into the rotor blades?

The heli option was used and trained for in the Olympics. Noting that you only do it if you can see said drone!

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:58 pm

box_of_frogs wrote:The heli option was used and trained for in the Olympics. Noting that you only do it if you can see said drone!

The chance still remains! The drone could fly into the blades of the helicopter!

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:21 pm

Yep, and you might get run over by a bus tomorrow. It’s all about taking appropriate risk.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:23 pm

box_of_frogs wrote:Yep, and you might get run over by a bus tomorrow. It’s all about taking appropriate risk.

Of course. Which would then bring us back around to shooting it down with a shotgun. Or better still - a shotgun to the person flying the damn thing.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:54 pm

FactualFrank wrote:I hope they catch whoever is doing it and lock them up for the maximum 5 years.

I think to deflect away the incompetence of the government and authorities in feeling with this the minimum term will be increased to ten years at least.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:44 pm

Nothing to do with the government though. Surely Gatwick is a private business that has failed to take appropriate countermeasures?

dougcollins · Post by **dougcollins** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:37 pm

There was a 'punk' band from Manchester circa 1976 called 'The Drones'.

They were sh1t.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:17 am

BennyD wrote:Heating them makes them more flexible and greatly improves their impact resistance. A windscreen at -40 would be a lot more brittle. Btw, all cockpit windows on our long haul aircraft are laminated glass

My dad flew in Valiants in the 1950s and looking through reports there were eight incidents of laminate cracking in January and February 1958, mostly when flying at 40,000 feet. That's just one squadron. Of course the aircraft was new and they were learning all the time.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:31 pm

That must have been the early days of such technology. We fly at 40,000ft whenever we can and we haven’t had a windscreen failure on the fleet. Being too hot or too cold causes problems for glass laminates so they work best in the sweet spot between!

SussexDon1inIreland · Post by **SussexDon1inIreland** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:52 pm

Could they use shot gun pellets which spread out and are unlikely to injure anyone below

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:49 pm

A couple have been arrested.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10628 ... e-arrested" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Espia · Post by **Espia** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:27 pm

Loosely related .... my worst experience of Drones was this chap in the Lake District video-ing his walk with one. I went there for a bit of isolated and peaceful walking. Seeing this made me wonder if this was the future of 'country-walking'.

Legislation is needed for these latest fads in more ways than just around Airports.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:55 pm

Last year we hired a holiday cottage on the west coast of Scotland for a week. We were sat in the garden having breakfast one morning when some utter balloon decided it would be good idea to fly a drone right over us - no doubt videoing us at the same time. Wish I'd had a catapult with me.

Yep, new legislation needed, not just for drones, but for our right to privacy too.

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:58 pm

When the photographs of the suspects were released, along with their ages, I must admit that they looked the most unlikely couple to be involved in this sort of incident. And, so it has proved, today released without charge.

Det. Ch. Supt. Jason Tingley now questioning as to whether there was ever any drone activity in the first place.

Perhaps it's something he feels in his water?

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:13 pm

Surely a helicopter could scoop them up in a net or something I'm surprised they didn't try..

MrTopTier · Post by **MrTopTier** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:27 pm

"Suspect in Gatwick shutdown is a Crawley window-fitter "

Which says to me , that people who put glass in houses shouldn't fly drones.

JarrowClaret · Post by **JarrowClaret** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:36 pm

Wow some very strange comments on here firstly you can’t just shoot Drones down it isn’t that easy. You would have to be very lucky or extremely good to hit a fast moving target with a single bullet so you would need lots of rounds. The problem with this is that when you put metal in the air it has a very bad habit of coming back to earth very quickly. We have 2 main types of air Defence missile neither are really suitable for small Targets although I know that 1 of them Rapier is in the process of being replaced I know nothing about it’s successor to determine if it would be suitable for this or not. I couldn’t imagine the Army firing a live missile at something like that in UK though. The best method would be to jam the signal that it receives on although that could interfere with other things and if it doesn’t trigger a go home signal it will drop out of the sky but what on????

JarrowClaret · Post by **JarrowClaret** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:43 pm

Radars could possibly detect the drone it would depend on speed, height and size though and also I would imagine the drones are reasonably short range. So where it is launched from would likely be too close to the airport for it to give any useful early warning.

JarrowClaret · Post by **JarrowClaret** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:01 pm

Just remembered something in Iraq they did introduce something called CRAAM which was basically the Close in Weapon System on ships (phalanx gun) it was to counter the mortar threat and as actually very successful at it the rounds also self destructed after a certain distance so very little chance of collateral damage. There are a few problems with it though firstly it is something 99% of rounds self destruct so there is still the chance that some metal is coming back to earth. It is reliant on being positioned in the exact location due to the very short range so it could potentially be avoided. I don’t know if it would be suitable if we still have it but I couldn’t see it being used if i’m honest even with f it was that is a very big step for any government

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:02 pm

It will make a good headline in Monday's papers anyway:

"Window fitter framed for Gatwick drone attack"

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Poor couple hung out to dry by our low rent media. This really needs to stop and the law should be changed. People shouldn't be named until they've actually been charged with something.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:07 am

JarrowClaret wrote:Wow some very strange comments on here firstly you can’t just shoot Drones down it isn’t that easy. You would have to be very lucky or extremely good to hit a fast moving target with a single bullet so you would need lots of rounds. The problem with this is that when you put metal in the air it has a very bad habit of coming back to earth very quickly. We have 2 main types of air Defence missile neither are really suitable for small Targets although I know that 1 of them Rapier is in the process of being replaced I know nothing about it’s successor to determine if it would be suitable for this or not. I couldn’t imagine the Army firing a live missile at something like that in UK though. The best method would be to jam the signal that it receives on although that could interfere with other things and if it doesn’t trigger a go home signal it will drop out of the sky but what on????

For grouse, which fly faster than drones, they use a shotgun with shot, not bullets. No problem with shot falling to earth because it's lighter.

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:16 am

Senior police officer now saying there is no definitive proof (video footage or pictures) that there was actually drone activity just some eyewitness accounts. Amazing that an airport can be closed for a day at the busiest time of the year and there is no concrete evidence that drones were flying.

How can somebody be arrested and charged for something that may never have happened?

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:11 am

Seems to have been much ado over nothing.

On the other hand if there had been some activity and it wasn't acted upon which subsequently turned out to be terrorist related there would be a hue and cry campaign against the authorities.

I've got a drone in my attic, not been out of the case for over 2 years but they are good fun when used sensibly.

Aside from it being a civil authority problem, there is not a chance in hell the Armed Forces will get involved using an physical weapon system to 'take down a drone'.

Apparently someone was questioning why the RAF couldn't just tip one over like they did with the V1

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:24 am

kentonclaret wrote:Senior police officer now saying there is no definitive proof (video footage or pictures) that there was actually drone activity just some eyewitness accounts. Amazing that an airport can be closed for a day at the busiest time of the year and there is no concrete evidence that drones were flying.

How can somebody be arrested and charged for something that may never have happened?

Could have been a couple of Eco crows.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:25 am

I wonder if the couple arrested could sue the papers for leaking their details and showing their photos.

Aclaret · Post by **Aclaret** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:36 am

FactualFrank wrote:I wonder if the couple arrested could sue the papers for leaking their details and showing their photos.

I was thinking the same last night Frank as I was watching them on the news. Film crews filming them as they came out of their house, it can't be right that these people were more or less accused of doing something they didn't and paraded in front of the nation.