Gatwick Airport, the seconnd main airport of London, has been closed for hours due to two drones flying around inside the perimeter and over the runway.
Flights carrying 10,000 people have been affected, unable to take off, or diverted to different airports. It is the beginning of one of the busiest weekends of the year.
Teenage idiots or industrial sabotage? If the police catch them, there is the potential of a 5 year jail term for this offence.
This was always going to be a problem. I saw a stand at the defence vehicle demo this year showing net lauchers and anti drone cannons, that are currently deployed or in the process of being deployed at UK airports, and there are anti drone jammers being deployed to warzones, but not currently allowed to be deployed on UK soil.
Rightly so on the Jail term front. if one of those things gets sucked into a turbojet intake the results could be catastrophic.
Gatwick chief operating officer Chris Woodroofe said police had not wanted to shoot the devices down because of the risk from stray bullets. He added: "The police are looking for the operator and that is the way to disable the drone."
So the airport isn't going to do anything and just leave it up to the police? Surely they have plans in place to deal with drones...
They might have plans, but sometimes until something happens plans are just theory talked about the boardroom table. When it comes to an active situation the complexities start to come out and sometimes an earlier "good idea" starts to appear to be less than good.
It might also be that investment in things like drone nets, have not yet been made. Perhaps they wanted to wait and see how other places and wider testing faired before making the investment themselves.
That said one could surely use a longer range BB gun? I would think they'd have enough force to damage/take down a drone without the same risk of live bullets flying around. Of course if the drone is on the perimeter that's fine; if its flying around near the planes then any attempt to shoot it down might be a risk if engines are still running.
Drones are a hazard and I can see them being regulated and requiring a licence. Unlike model airplanes, which have been around for years, drones are very cheap (comparatively speaking) and the computers inside make them very easy to fly. So its low price low skill which opens the floodgates to a much wider population. Plus they've been marketed a lot more heavily so people are aware of them - I can't even recall seeing an advertisement for functional model aircraft that wasn't already on a store that specialises in such products.
The RSPB and other groups have already restricted/banned the use of drones over their land due to disturbance and they've had issues in the USA of people chasing wildlife with them leading to similar bans.
Gatwick chief operating officer Chris Woodroofe said police had not wanted to shoot the devices down because of the risk from stray bullets. He added: "The police are looking for the operator and that is the way to disable the drone."
So the airport isn't going to do anything and just leave it up to the police? Surely they have plans in place to deal with drones...
Apparently their plans were to stop flying. Anti drone tech is quite new, and I would guess you would need it to be well tested before using it near an airport.
That said one could surely use a longer range BB gun? I would think they'd have enough force to damage/take down a drone without the same risk of live bullets flying around.
A BB gun, not a hope. An air rifle? Possibly, but there is not much diffrence between a high power air rifle and a 22lr in terms of power. Either way you would risk hitting someone, and you would need a reasonable amount of power to ensure thay you did not need to be that close that they could just move away from you (22lr and FAC air rifles have an effective range of between 50 and 100 meters).
I cant imagine them getting authority to start loosing off projectiles into the sky. plus firing solid shot at flying targets is notoriously difficult, and would require skilled shooters. an alternative would be to get clay/pigeon shooters to take them down with shotguns.
I should have thought they could put police marksmen with shotguns on a helicopter, fly above the drone, then shoot down at it so that any missing pellets would hit the ground rather than an aircraft or building.
They also might be able to follow the drone when it returns to base for new batteries.
These ideas would not work at night, of course.
There are 110,000 people wanting to use Gatwick today, including my two pod mates. One's mother is flying in from Lithuania, the other is flying home to Venice, for Christmas. But probably not, now.
This is not how we want Britain to present itself to the world as a modern open country for business and tourism.
I suppose the only problem with shooting the drones down is that once they are down the operators will just leave. So I can see why they might let them remain in the air so that they have a greater chance of catching the operators.
Whilst it leads to more disruption, it sends a much more powerful message if you catch the people doing this and give them a heavy punishment; than if you simply shoot down the drones and keep going.
Another angle is that if the drones are cheap enough and those causing the disruption dedicated enough; shooting down one drone or two might make the operators release more. So instead of stopping the incident it just creates more confusion.
You make a good point. There is no use shooting down a drone, starting flights again, then another drone arriving and hitting a plane in the air.
I think these drones definitely are professional sabotage. I can't imagine a couple of stupid teenagers putting so much effort into what basically would be a silly prank.
The fact that a drone was in the air for 12 hours must show it was a planned setup potentially with multiple participants, otherwise what the hell are they flying, Reapers?
I'm all for the idea of prosecution of the culprit and measures put in place to stop this, lest it becomes a common strategy for troublemakers, terrorists or even protestors. Want to protest Heathrow's third runway? Just fly a few drones nearby and shut the place down.
Can't see shooting being a viable strategy however, my hopes would lie in signal jammers and such.
Years ago in america we had morons aiming high power laser pointers at airplanes, targeting the cockpits in some cases. Serious penalties were imposed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Years ago in america we had morons aiming high power laser pointers at airplanes, targeting the cockpits in some cases. Serious penalties were imposed.
My Italian colleague's flight has been cancelled. It was schedule to depart 20:30 tonight, so clearly the airport management think they are out of action for the day..
Next available flight is 26th Dec. She's going by train instead. Total journey time will be about 18-20 hours.
My immediate thoughts were about how they were keeping them up for so long, as I use drones for work and the battery life is rubbish, but it transpires that they keep disappearing and reappearing (they've thought they were clear to fly several times before they were spotted again) so they're presumably landing them and changing batteries.
Going to have severe legislative repercussions for drone ownership and sales in the UK, I imagine.
Even without this incident I can see them being heavily regulated. What's fun for some is a distraction or danger to others.
And yeah they are likely landing and relaunching, plus considering how big an area an airport is and how fast some drones are it could be that they are sweeping them in and out through deceptive angles and also operating from a vehicle so can move around between launchings. One driver and one or two pilots and they could keep two drones in the air for ages - longer if they keep the car engine running and top up the batteries from the car power ports.
Plus its not like they have to keep hovering for ages; darting in and out is enough to keep the planes grounded. The risk of just one going through an engine intake is just too great.
If we're going to be serious about clamping down on this level of sabotage, and let's be honest, that's what it is by now, then we need to send out a zero tolerance approach.
5 years? Give them 30 lashes in public with the cat o' nine tails and stick them in the jail for 10 years. Minimum.
Harsh, yes, because it's meant to be. The alternative is jets dropping from the sky and hundreds of people getting scrapped off the tarmac and/or being burnt to death by aviation fuel.
The most effective way to prevent this is what is called geofencing. Drone manufacturers should be forced to build in software into their drones that prevents them from working near airports and other restricted areas. Many drones already have this kind of software built in, but not all of them do. It is also something that is still pretty new, so it does not always work perfectly yet. Another effective solution is to register (and possibly require a license for) all drone owners, and make unregistered possession of a drone a crime.
Iron_Captain wrote: The most effective way to prevent this is what is called geofencing. Drone manufacturers should be forced to build in software into their drones that prevents them from working near airports and other restricted areas. Many drones already have this kind of software built in, but not all of them do. It is also something that is still pretty new, so it does not always work perfectly yet.
Another effective solution is to register (and possibly require a license for) all drone owners, and make unregistered possession of a drone a crime.
If they're not GPS enabled and are just being flown manually from the onboard cameras then geofencing will do zip.
Registration would definitely be a good idea, possibly even with the owner linked to a code broadcast by the drone while it is operating.
BBC News are reporting these are thought to be 'industrial' drones, larger than those Joe Public might have access to.
Not suggesting something Joe Public could look up and then use to target owners for thievery etc. More like, say, broadcasting a 128-bit key that is tied to the owner in the presumably secure national drone registry database.
Valkyrie wrote: The fact that a drone was in the air for 12 hours must show it was a planned setup potentially with multiple participants, otherwise what the hell are they flying, Reapers?
I'm all for the idea of prosecution of the culprit and measures put in place to stop this, lest it becomes a common strategy for troublemakers, terrorists or even protestors. Want to protest Heathrow's third runway? Just fly a few drones nearby and shut the place down.
Can't see shooting being a viable strategy however, my hopes would lie in signal jammers and such.
I'm no expert on radio frequency equipment and what channels these things are controlled on, but I cant see Jammers being used in the UK for a while. the ones I saw were only allowed to be deployed overseas on operations. When we want to deploy ECM on EOD jobs in the UK permission has to be granted by the home office as they have the potential to interfere with lots of different types of equipment.
I wold personally support a ban on public sales of them. I know that's punishing responsible users but I think the risk they pose outweighs that.
Jammers will be installed before Easter...
They're directional, and can be made to track before activating.
Jammers facing into the site, or up from the ground into the air, can avoid affecting anything legitimate.
Iron_Captain wrote: The most effective way to prevent this is what is called geofencing. Drone manufacturers should be forced to build in software into their drones that prevents them from working near airports and other restricted areas. Many drones already have this kind of software built in, but not all of them do. It is also something that is still pretty new, so it does not always work perfectly yet.
Iron_Captain wrote: The most effective way to prevent this is what is called geofencing. Drone manufacturers should be forced to build in software into their drones that prevents them from working near airports and other restricted areas. Many drones already have this kind of software built in, but not all of them do. It is also something that is still pretty new, so it does not always work perfectly yet.
A sufficiently motivated person would have that disabled in a couple nights of messing around with it.
Another effective solution is to register (and possibly require a license for) all drone owners, and make unregistered possession of a drone a crime.
We do that in the states for drones heavier than a couple ounces. The libertarian in me is horrified, but I reluctantly see the point. Unfortunately, it also depends upon people playing by the rules, as right now the only thing compelling people to register their drones is a willingness to operate within the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This reminds me of a funny story. Back in the 90s when I was a kid, my dad and I were flying a homemade kite in a park somewhat near the local airport. We actually got the thing high enough that someone came out to ask us to take it down. I don't know how high we actually got it, but I know that we had multiple lines tied together to get it up further than just one would allow. No trouble came of it, and we brought it down as quick as we could. I don't think it occurred to us that we were close enough or high enough that it would even be noticed.
Absolutely unacceptable that this has gone on for so long now. And very typical that something like this has to happen before any kind of reactionary process is put in place. I'm actually amazed it hasn't happened before now.
Obviously shooting regular weaponry would be foolhardy, but why couldn't they use rubber bullets?
Or I saw a news real from an anti-drone-drone in Japan. The Yakuza were using drones to transport drugs across the city - the Police made a bigger drone with a net, flew after them and captured them!
Or even someone leaning out of a helicopter with a stick? *
Why is it so hard?
* actually, I would have thought even hovering above, the downdraft from a suitably large helicopter would do the job..
So who would stand to benefit?
I did wonder if it was to do with proposed airport expansion at Gatwick, but upon reading the extra runway was rejected in favour of Heathrow. They are planning extra capacity and more flights from the airport - maybe that is something to do with it?
It feels unlikely that it's terrorists trying to bring down a plane, as presumably they would wait for flights to resume before sending in something surreptitiously. Rather than randomly hovering around (which makes it feel like the objective is to keep the airport shut down).
Pacific wrote: Absolutely unacceptable that this has gone on for so long now. And very typical that something like this has to happen before any kind of reactionary process is put in place. I'm actually amazed it hasn't happened before now.
Obviously shooting regular weaponry would be foolhardy, but why couldn't they use rubber bullets?
Or I saw a news real from an anti-drone-drone in Japan. The Yakuza were using drones to transport drugs across the city - the Police made a bigger drone with a net, flew after them and captured them!
Or even someone leaning out of a helicopter with a stick? *
Why is it so hard?
Deputy chief constable Serena Kennedy, lead on drones and criminality for National Police Chiefs' Council, said the police have been working with government departments for a while on the issues of drone misuse.
"We are testing equipment to make sure we understand the full capabilities of that equipment, to make sure we don't take out other equipment that's needed in relation to hospitals," she said.
"We absolutely have to put public safety number one."
She said they also faced legislative issues and there was a need to make sure the police, the private sector and the military have got the ability to do what they need in situations like today.
I'm thinking it's a political/activist group making a point. I was wondering if it was a 'test run' for something more serious, but it's gone on too long for that (IMHO).
Currently having first hand experience of this, was meant to be getting a flight at 10am this morning to be told not to come to the airport because all flights are cancelled.
Due to the fact it's Christmas there are literally no flights that I can afford to get back to Ireland in a reasonable time frame so I'm currently booking it to Holyhead to get a boat for this evening at 8pm (by booking it I mean getting a train). So that gets me as far as Dublin but my car is in Belfast which requires another train to go there.
I understand why they shut the place down but man is it a ball ache, not to mention the trauma involved with getting compensation.
Not the first time I've experienced a shut down at Gatwick. The building got evacuated a few years back because a toaster went on fire in departures.
Pacific wrote: Absolutely unacceptable that this has gone on for so long now. And very typical that something like this has to happen before any kind of reactionary process is put in place. I'm actually amazed it hasn't happened before now.
Check my post earlier, I wager part of the reason its gone on so long is because they want to actually catch who is doing it, which means having the drones in the air so they can track them. A measure made hard by the fact that airports are huge and the drone only has to zoom over once every so often to keep the planes grounded (and as they've come back over and over they've got to catch or have a long window to avoid the chance that they zoom the drone back over after giving an all clear - which would leave to even more chaos).
If those deploying the drones are using a vehicle they could easily be deploying and moving around whilst the drone is in the air and then collecting it at a new spot etc... So its even harder to keep track and try and catch them - esp if they are flying it long distance into the airport to start with.
Tracking such small flying vehicles is just not something most police forces are going to be equipped for in the least beyond giving everyone a pair of binoculars and sweeping the sky.
BBC News are reporting these are thought to be 'industrial' drones, larger than those Joe Public might have access to.
So who would stand to benefit?
Train companies, Ferry operators, environmentalists, anarchists, anti-Western or anti-capitalist groups.
Other governments? Disrupting a transport hub at one of the busiest times of the year seems like an effective form of easily deniable economic warfare.
BBC News are reporting these are thought to be 'industrial' drones, larger than those Joe Public might have access to.
So who would stand to benefit?
Train companies, Ferry operators, environmentalists, anarchists, anti-Western or anti-capitalist groups.
Other governments? Disrupting a transport hub at one of the busiest times of the year seems like an effective form of easily deniable economic warfare.
Thing is this isn't just going to hit the UK - its going to hit every other airport that sends/receives aircraft from that airport. The only kind of government that would benefit would be one that has no international flight through that airport - so we are pretty much down to either fringe political (terrorist) groups and countries like N.Korea.
Thing is this is really local; if it were another country doing this I'd have expected them to hit more airports- either in one country or multiple countries at once. This could still be really local level - eg people protesting the new runway and other construction work and hoping that if they cause enough disruption it will go away (or more likely they just want to "flip the bird" at them in a way that seriously hurts).
Its funny how they have nothing to shoot the drones down with, but if they had just sent someone to the hardware store they could have whipped up a Potato Cannon that shoots nets in the course of an afternoon.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: It could possibly be someone who wants drones banned. It's certainly a good way to go about it.
Expensive way to go about it. Especially when Drone enthusiasts themselves do stupid stuff like this all the time. No need to run a false flag operation.
Its probably some idiot who wants close up footage of planes taking off and landing for their blog or something.
Ever since militaries started using drones for conventional warfare it has only been a matter of time before non state actors started using them for asymetrical warfare.
There should be tighter regulation on them, obviously. A license to own them, at least, and a way to track them to their owner. That all seems feasible, along with the Geofencing thing. Other types can simply be banned from sale with immediate effect, there is no reason to risk this crap for a hobby.
Whoever is doing this is incredibly selfish. I hope they are caught and get the book thrown at them.
Whoever it is, they've been doing it now for almost 24 hours, undiscovered (I mean the perpetrators, of course), with the pressure of knowing it's HUGE news, the police are after them - now apparently also the Army - and plenty of "good ol' boys" would like nothing better than to give them a ... "robust talking to"
That says a LOT about them in terms of their commitment, planning and nerves.
Actually its not that complex a setup - couple of dones, a car and a handful of people. Even if the drones are "industrial" all that means is that they aren't sold down your local highstreet store. You can probably buy them very easily with a few moments googling up the make and model (provided they are not expired models of course). Price might be an issue, but there again they could be stolen/old stock/redundant/second hand or even ex display models etc...
I would say its middle of the row at present in terms of hostility. It's disruptive more than it is dangerous. If they wanted to cause harm and danger that would be very easily (and scarily so). Just fly the drones at random times not continuous over a single day and fly them into the air intakes. Heck if its industrial and thus larger get it to carry something big and chunky to really mess up the plane or such.
Kilkrazy wrote: I should have thought they could put police marksmen with shotguns on a helicopter, fly above the drone, then shoot down at it so that any missing pellets would hit the ground rather than an aircraft or building.
Kilkrazy wrote: I should have thought they could put police marksmen with shotguns on a helicopter, fly above the drone, then shoot down at it so that any missing pellets would hit the ground rather than an aircraft or building.
Is that a serious comment?
I actually think just flying a good-sized helicopter over the top of the drone would have the same outcome.
Overread wrote: Actually its not that complex a setup - couple of dones, a car and a handful of people. Even if the drones are "industrial" all that means is that they aren't sold down your local highstreet store. You can probably buy them very easily with a few moments googling up the make and model (provided they are not expired models of course). Price might be an issue, but there again they could be stolen/old stock/redundant/second hand or even ex display models etc...
I would say its middle of the row at present in terms of hostility. It's disruptive more than it is dangerous. If they wanted to cause harm and danger that would be very easily (and scarily so). Just fly the drones at random times not continuous over a single day and fly them into the air intakes. Heck if its industrial and thus larger get it to carry something big and chunky to really mess up the plane or such.
I agree. If these people wanted to crash into a plane, they would have done that. They are inflicting economic damage by shutting down the airport.
It's odd that no-one has claimed responsibility. If you were an anti-runway protestor, as a political action it's pointless to do something like this and not announce the reasons why.
Going back to the practicalities, if I wanted to do this kind of attack, I would get an old Transit box van and make a hatch in the roof. The drones could be flown in and out, and you could move around to different locations to confuse the police. Or maybe two vans, with two drones in each. You would need four to six people and the budget would be in the range of low tens of thousands.
Overread wrote: Actually its not that complex a setup - couple of dones, a car and a handful of people. Even if the drones are "industrial" all that means is that they aren't sold down your local highstreet store. You can probably buy them very easily with a few moments googling up the make and model (provided they are not expired models of course). Price might be an issue, but there again they could be stolen/old stock/redundant/second hand or even ex display models etc...
I would say its middle of the row at present in terms of hostility. It's disruptive more than it is dangerous. If they wanted to cause harm and danger that would be very easily (and scarily so). Just fly the drones at random times not continuous over a single day and fly them into the air intakes. Heck if its industrial and thus larger get it to carry something big and chunky to really mess up the plane or such.
I agree. If these people wanted to crash into a plane, they would have done that. They are inflicting economic damage by shutting down the airport.
It's odd that no-one has claimed responsibility. If you were an anti-runway protestor, as a political action it's pointless to do something like this and not announce the reasons why.
Going back to the practicalities, if I wanted to do this kind of attack, I would get an old Transit box van and make a hatch in the roof. The drones could be flown in and out, and you could move around to different locations to confuse the police. Or maybe two vans, with two drones in each. You would need four to six people and the budget would be in the range of low tens of thousands.
Aye, but surely at this point someone would have noticed where the drones keep flying to. The cops could even get one of their own and follow the offenders.
Modern industrial drones can only fly for an hour, tops. But they have a range of MILES. You could easily be swapping out between a guy off site in the brush somewhere, and a mobile vehicle that can move around the airport.
Aye a couple of £3K drones, a £500-1000 transit van* and a couple of people to operate and perhaps a driver so you can even move the control point around as you're flying. If you've got a few kilometres range that makes for a huge area to search and police.
And those are new prices for the drones, any second hand market would be cheaper. Cheaper still if anyone in the team can repair drones and thus can pick up broken/damage stock for even less or just parts prices.
*It's only got the last the day or two and if bought cash-in-hand might not even generate enough of a papertrail to follow. If they wanted to be really smart some false plates might help too. It's the only traceable item in the setup at present so make it dirt cheap and dump it after.
I do agree its odd that no one is making any noise and claiming this. Then again if its a really small group they might be totally focused on this and on not making a noise about it. Perhaps they hope to make a noise later if they escape or are caught - either way can give them platform.
We also can't ignore that they might have expected to get caught really soon and thus were not prepared for a whole day or more causing disruption and thus are just "winging it" and going on for as long as they can dare to.
I agree with the above posters that it sounds like somebody is staying mobile, using a van or something to do this, but I've also read they could be sitting in France or up the Himalayas or something, and controlling the drones from there via the internet.
Can I also remind people that we've had radio controlled aircraft for years, and that Britain is a hotbed of enthusiasts for the hobby. I myself have been involved in it for years. Small flying things are not new.
I've known a lot of people over the years who were engineering and electronic geniuses, and for all the talk of putting serial numbers on drone or granting a licence, these kind of people could easily build something like this from scratch.
I don't think it's a terrorist action. Drones in Syria have been used to drop homemade or improvised mortars, so I think if terrorists wanted to cause damage or destruction something like that would've been attempted. It seems more like deliberate sabotage. I think it's gone too far even for the most determined pranksters.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I cant imagine them getting authority to start loosing off projectiles into the sky. plus firing solid shot at flying targets is notoriously difficult, and would require skilled shooters. an alternative would be to get clay/pigeon shooters to take them down with shotguns.
If a bullet goes up, it comes down. Even if you could be certain of hitting the drone the bullet would likely go thru it reflected onto a random course. It could hit and kill or injure someone.
If I we're tasked with a coming up with a solution to this sort of idiocy, I would likely make a large high performance drone designed to get over an intruding drone and from a weighted net on it to jam it's props and drag it straight down.
Can I also remind people that we've had radio controlled aircraft for years, and that Britain is a hotbed of enthusiasts for the hobby. I myself have been involved in it for years. Small flying things are not new.
I've known a lot of people over the years who were engineering and electronic geniuses, and for all the talk of putting serial numbers on drone or granting a licence, these kind of people could easily build something like this from scratch.
Aye, though its my understanding that most model aircraft require a decent bit of skill to fly. Plus the time in building and maintaining them I think puts so much load on investment that most who get into it are not really going to use it for a stunt like this. The worst they might stray into airspace and get a royal telling off; but they wouldn't do it out of spite or for another angle.
Drones shift it somewhat because they are nearly effortless to fly and learning with them is a lot simpler at least for basic flight. Plus they are mostly a complete kit with little assembly and their ease of flying means they are less likely to end up in a 10001 parts and require a rebuilt*. So its really only a financial investment.
That said we've had drones for years; sometimes things only happen because someone gets the idea and does it. There is potential to cause harm and mayhem with so many things in life.
*I seriously think it takes dedication in a hobby where your pride and joy can smash into little bits in a second with one incorrect flick of a finger or a tiny gust of wind going the wrong way
Can I also remind people that we've had radio controlled aircraft for years, and that Britain is a hotbed of enthusiasts for the hobby. I myself have been involved in it for years. Small flying things are not new.
I've known a lot of people over the years who were engineering and electronic geniuses, and for all the talk of putting serial numbers on drone or granting a licence, these kind of people could easily build something like this from scratch.
Aye, though its my understanding that most model aircraft require a decent bit of skill to fly. Plus the time in building and maintaining them I think puts so much load on investment that most who get into it are not really going to use it for a stunt like this. The worst they might stray into airspace and get a royal telling off; but they wouldn't do it out of spite or for another angle.
Drones shift it somewhat because they are nearly effortless to fly and learning with them is a lot simpler at least for basic flight. Plus they are mostly a complete kit with little assembly and their ease of flying means they are less likely to end up in a 10001 parts and require a rebuilt*. So its really only a financial investment.
That said we've had drones for years; sometimes things only happen because someone gets the idea and does it. There is potential to cause harm and mayhem with so many things in life.
*I seriously think it takes dedication in a hobby where your pride and joy can smash into little bits in a second with one incorrect flick of a finger or a tiny gust of wind going the wrong way
It's heart-break to see your pride and joy end up in a black bag
and yeah, it's hard to fly these things when you first start. A lot of skill involved compared to a drone. And you don't get much flying time on a tank of fuel if you're old school, but these days it's all batteries.
OT but if anybody is interested in the hobby, trainer kits, with everything you need, are about the £150 mark. I've you've got half-decent level of hobby competence or used to doing DIY or car repairs or whatever, they're fairly straight forwsrd to build. And they fly well.
It's a good hobby to get involved in, but it's finding somewere to fly them. Best to join a club.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Techpriestsupport wrote: I wonder if this could be a government operation to generate a groundswell of support for banning/regulating drones...
I'm going full tinfoil hat here, but whilst everybody is focused on the airport, what else is going on while we're distracted?
Reminds me of Die Hard 3. Police are running around looking for a fake bomb, but Jeremy Irons is robbing the bank.
I live within walking distance of the airport and just drove a complete circuit of the runway to and from my Christmas food shop. For half the route you drive directly alongside the runway apart from a small stretch with public and staff parking.
What was surprising is that I did not see a single policeman, solider, security guard or related vehicle at all during my circuit. I thought they would have at least had some visible presence even if just to make it look like they were more active.
The surrounding area is farm land on two sides and housing on the other two. All four directions would have a lot of good spots to pilot and recharge the drones from.
Regarding runways, there is some minor disagreement here at the moment because Gatwick does have two runways but is only allowed to use one or them with the second being used for emergency landings only. Gatwick are trying to sneakily get approval for full time use of the second runway which would mean the expansion of the airport and purchase of surrounding land plus a big increase in staff requirements and passenger numbers. Not sure this is motivation for the drone or not but is an issue (I think local activists are more likely to be having a go at fracking instead due to a number of nearby sites and recent earthquakes).
There are currently mobile lasers that can detonate a bomb at a distance. I imagine itcs not going to be long before we could have anti drone lawyers just powerful enough to kills drone within a few hundred meters. With a range calibration factor to focus it to dangerous levels at just about the range of the drone this might be a thing someday.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I wonder if this could be a government operation to generate a groundswell of support for banning/regulating drones...
If so, the seeds will fall on fertile ground. Some of my fellow workers were complaining about being buzzed by drones while picniccing in the park and sunbathing at the beach.
I can't say I would be fussed myself. I can see the innocent fun in drones, but there's a lot of potential for naughtiness too and without any training either for legality or for piloting skills, any idiot can just buy one and start to annoy their neighbours. They get used in a different way to model airplanes, by a different kind of user.
Certainly larger drones should be regulated. And if they are flown over private property too close and/or are filming private property you should be allowed to defend yourself against the drone, and the user guilty of trespass.
Tyranid Horde wrote: Currently having first hand experience of this, was meant to be getting a flight at 10am this morning to be told not to come to the airport because all flights are cancelled.
Due to the fact it's Christmas there are literally no flights that I can afford to get back to Ireland in a reasonable time frame so I'm currently booking it to Holyhead to get a boat for this evening at 8pm (by booking it I mean getting a train). So that gets me as far as Dublin but my car is in Belfast which requires another train to go there.
I understand why they shut the place down but man is it a ball ache, not to mention the trauma involved with getting compensation.
Not the first time I've experienced a shut down at Gatwick. The building got evacuated a few years back because a toaster went on fire in departures.
I initially read that as 'a Lobster' went on fire in departures'.
Sympathies to all caught up in this nonsense. Hope you manage to get where you're going for Chrimbo.
Ideally everyone who wants to ride a bike should take a training course and read the Highway Code, but the vehicle is basically easy to use, mostly un-threatening. In most cases responsible parents teach their children how to operate bikes responsibly. However there are an annoying number of people who disobey the rules, ride on the pavement, run red lights and so on.
Change it up to mopeds and the heavier nature of the vehicle creates more danger to the rider and other road users. A proper licensing system for both rider and vehicle becomes appropriate.
With the light "toy" drones we've got a number people who don't know the rules, or don't care, and they behave anti-socially. This is a problem which needs a social solution rather than a licensing framework.
But a licensing framework is what we will get if there is enough public annoyance. The same way that calls for bicyclists and push bikes to be licensed, since some incidents of serious hard or death in the past few years have been well publicised.
100k passengers could cover a large area in a search.... Free flight to anyone bringing a drone pilot to the single police officer ambling about, trying to look busy or interested.
Seriously though, the airport is closed, all flights diverted, when the drone is up, give it a large band blocking signal, bring it down. When the next one goes up, plot where it came from, then block the signal again. If it knocks everyone local's tv, radio and wifi out for a few minutes, tough, tell them it will stop happening when the people responcible are caught.
Dr Coconut wrote: 100k passengers could cover a large area in a search.... Free flight to anyone bringing a drone pilot to the single police officer ambling about, trying to look busy or interested.
Seriously though, the airport is closed, all flights diverted, when the drone is up, give it a large band blocking signal, bring it down. When the next one goes up, plot where it came from, then block the signal again. If it knocks everyone local's tv, radio and wifi out for a few minutes, tough, tell them it will stop happening when the people responsible are caught.
Have you been watching 'The Empire Strikes Back' again...? A couple of bursts from an ion cannon, and "the first transport is away".
But, if the drone is using known frequencies, narrow-band jamming should be used ASAP.
If that fails, widen the bands until it works.
A drone with no pilot should behave in certain ways. Don't they usually hover to the ground, or return to base? If they've been programmed to do something else, at least we'll find out more about the motives of this. If it is programmed to crash into something, whether a building or infrastructure, the authorities get to pull out the big guns.
Yeah. Using their software also requires you to sign up to terms and conditions that give the Chinese government access to all your data so I'd be reticent to suggest that it be used widely.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I agree with the above posters that it sounds like somebody is staying mobile, using a van or something to do this, but I've also read they could be sitting in France or up the Himalayas or something, and controlling the drones from there via the internet.
The drone would still need to be landing somewhere to recharge.
I understand that there's a lot of roadways and parking around the airport, but if there's a transit van acting as a mobile base, you'd have hoped someone would have spotted it by now. That said, there are probably hundreds of valid reasons for a van to be moving around the airport area all day.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I agree with the above posters that it sounds like somebody is staying mobile, using a van or something to do this, but I've also read they could be sitting in France or up the Himalayas or something, and controlling the drones from there via the internet.
The drone would still need to be landing somewhere to recharge.
I understand that there's a lot of roadways and parking around the airport, but if there's a transit van acting as a mobile base, you'd have hoped someone would have spotted it by now. That said, there are probably hundreds of valid reasons for a van to be moving around the airport area all day.
And if they've got a drone that can fly several kilometres the van/car could be well outside of the airport grounds. If they've got a driver they could even be flying whilst moving which would likely make triangulation of the signal harder to lock down (one would assume).
I wonder if putting a police helicopter high up in the air and then visually tracking the drone would work; although that might have been complicated by airspace restrictions over the airport initially and it might even be that the drones are small enough (coupled to lighting and weather) that they are very hard to spot. Plus could be they've tried it and each time they put their helicopter up the drones go to ground; operators waiting for the helicopter to go away before resuming their disruption. .
The drone could be set to land at a specific location where someoenwaited with afresh battery, chat be the battery innundr a minute and the droncs away again. The battery changer could escape quickly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Techpriestsupport wrote: The drone could be set to land at a specific location where someoenwaited with afresh battery, chat be the battery innundr a minute and the droncs away again. The battery changer could escape quickly.
I've known a lot of people over the years who were engineering and electronic geniuses, and for all the talk of putting serial numbers on drone or granting a licence, these kind of people could easily build something like this from scratch.
Well yeah, but then you're getting into the arguments of why even have laws when people are going to break them?
If you're caught operating a drone without the correct licence or ID broadcast or whatever results from this, then you suffer whatever penalty is prescribed by the law.
Crispy78 wrote: If you're caught operating a drone without the correct licence or ID broadcast or whatever results from this, then you suffer whatever penalty is prescribed by the law.
But shutting down an airport (or worse) is already going to be a crime, if someone is willing to do this kind of thing then adding on a charge of unauthorized drone operation isn't going to make much of a difference. All you're doing is adding a ton of bureaucracy to deal with these licenses, and the only real benefit is going to be stopping the careless idiots that are already stopped by geofencing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I wonder if putting a police helicopter high up in the air and then visually tracking the drone would work; although that might have been complicated by airspace restrictions over the airport initially and it might even be that the drones are small enough (coupled to lighting and weather) that they are very hard to spot. Plus could be they've tried it and each time they put their helicopter up the drones go to ground; operators waiting for the helicopter to go away before resuming their disruption.
Airspace is no big deal, the controllers regularly deal with much more complicated traffic separation than having a helicopter sitting around watching for drones. The real issue is that it's hard to spot things from the air even at 500-1000' when you're right on top of it. Having played the game of "this house, no, wait, you mean the one next to that one?" while trying to show people stuff from the air the idea of trying to spot a relatively small drone quickly after launch sounds like a nightmare.
Techpriestsupport wrote: The drone could be set to land at a specific location where someoenwaited with afresh battery, chat be the battery innundr a minute and the droncs away again. The battery changer could escape quickly.
Or just have a second drone ready to go while the first is recharged.
I think there's definitely more than one drone involved here. To operate the way they have for over 24 hours suggests there has to be. Probably more than one operator too, and possibly auxiliary team members on the perimeter and in the airport itself relaying info.
With stuff like raspberry pi and other hardware people could make their own drone computer systems and make hem pretty unhackable.
As to jamming, if someone added laser receptors to a drone exterior they could control it by laser remote.
Not to tie this to 40k here but I could see the day when more and ire restrictions on available tech are imported on people by the system to prevent them form having any sort of tech edge over the system.
And yet at the same time you can freely buy chainsaws, cars, petrol, weed killer and a host of other items that are super dangerous if used in a certain way.
Thing is one must realise that the overwhelming majority of people don't want to do terrorist acts. We've had drones for years and this is the first major incident with them that's had far reaching impact on people. We have millions of cars on the road and lorries and dustcarts and other vehicles and no one regularly goes charging through pedestrians or building bombs out of weedkiller and petrol and the like.
Sometimes if you over-react you actually create more of a problem than if you regulate and realise that the majority don't want to do these things.
TV and the way it heavily focuses on the negative can often give an impression that things are worse than they are; plus news stations buy the same stories from the same reporters and often focus on the same stories anyway. So you get a group effect. Honestly its quite rare that major news channels cover totally different major news events; they imght show different angles and interpretations, but by and large they stick to the same big stories. It's only smaller infill that tend to vary.
A simple regulation like a licence and authorized fly zones would be paperwork, but wouldn't restrict heavily. Plus as drones get bigger and more complex basic training would help avoid many accidents.
And yet you can still buy chainsaws without a licence and they are horrifically deadly to the operator and those around them if used improperly (and 5 mins on youtube can show LOADS of examples of people doing stuff that they'd never do if they had a few days of proeper training). As annoying as drones are I'd far rather welcome a licence system on chainsaws!
What about a fire company with a water cannon? That will be more than enough to down the drone, not hurt anyone, and its not like you guys lack for water.
I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
I agree that hunting down the person responsible is the only real "fix".
It really boils down to how the drone will send/receive the signals for control.
Straight-up radio if you can isolate it can be triangulated.
If it ties into a wireless network in the area, that gets a little harder since it may be indistinguishable from any other hand-held device signal.
You may have to use a packet sniffer and hope you can see anything looking like telemetry data (if it is not encrypted too strongly).
Some drones you can program in waypoints so it could operate autonomously, I am not sure how far consumer drones can go without it's controller periodically communicating back to it.
Backup plan is to get fed up with this mess and shoot them out of the sky with shotgun based weaponry.
Means of firing a net would need some element of surprise since the range would be rather problematic.
Signal jamming at an airport I think could not be safely done.
There are some light grade "weaponized" lasers that could melt through the fairly weak materials of drones and is "fast" enough to take them down but that would require involving some group with deep pockets.
Sorry, I am having visions of "Drone Busters!" driving around in a hearse with a laser cannon on the roof (don't cross the beams!).
Could be a good service premise.
I think these drones definitely are professional sabotage. I can't imagine a couple of stupid teenagers putting so much effort into what basically would be a silly prank.
I think the opposite, suddenly one day some idiot decided to do this. Tomorrow another idiot will have the same idea.
Actual saboteurs might have thought of this sooner but that itself is not always the case. I remember a journey into London and passing litter bins in the middle of the crowded concourse of Euston station. My thoughts on seeing that was 'if I were an IRA terrorist that is where I would place a bomb'. This was some years before all litter bins were removed from such places because the IRA started to do exactly that.. Gatwick has had sabotage in the past. Black Lives Matter blocked the access ramps before with a protest causing a large number of people to miss their flights.
However if saboteurs thought of drones first they would hit several airports at once, really feth things up for people. as it so happens its pranksters or kids in my opinion who are most likely responsible. Just was well,the disruption will continue for the short term but not last long. MI5 are not sleepy amateurs.
Whoever flew the drones yesterday, you* have had your lulz, do yourself a favour and stop. You might not care about anyone else, but you likely care about yourself. The system was not ready for you so if you ghost away you wont get caught. If you brag about it, or continue, you will do prison time and likely you will be forcably evicted directly or indirectly if you live in the vicinity. It sucks to have a court order preventing you from being within 10 miles of an airport, when you had accommodation near there. Yes, that does also mean being listed as intentionally homeless, so you will get no state support.
A lot of the stuff that might be able to take out a drone (shotguns, nets, watercannon) are unlikely to be able to help much here as since this is apparently a large commercial drone it is flying too high
and while targeting it from another drone or helicopter might be possible they've yet to get close enough
as otherwise they'd have been able to get a decent photo and ID the drone which would give them something substantial to work on for tracking down the user (big commercial drones are not going to be sold in large enough numbers for this to be a dead end unlike some toy drones where you'd be looking at tens of thousands of units)
Id also suspect the operator isn't running this from a van or similar simply because of the crazy amount of survilence and ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras in the UK, especially around London. All to easy to run a program to look for plate (or a lack of them) and so ID the van and then the user.
Switching plates would help dodge the ANPR but provide a way for real people viewing the surveillance tapes to spot it (same van different plates) so useful in the short term for a terrorist who is relatively ok getting caught or is going to run anyway but not so useful for angry anti Gatwick bloke who I suspect this will turn out to be
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.
So you deny the D notice exists?
As to this incident I don't know what the doer is trying to do or say. If he wanted a simple panic that would be easy. A drone with a few small bags of red powder, like powdered chalk or dyed flour, could hover over a city and release the powder to be spread by the down wash of the rotors and produce instant massive panic as peolle stampede in terror of a possible chemical or biological attack. That would so simple and obvious anyone would think of it.
So this guy isn't trying to produce a panic, he could do that pretty easy.
Does england have anything like our No fly list? If so he may be on it possibly wrongly and as such is retaliating against what he sees as his persecution. Again I don't know if england has a no fly list. If it does i'm sure British police are investigating peolle on it.
Or maybe he was a fired worker at the airport with a grudge. Again I donct doubt authorities are looking at that.
But I think he bad a grudge against air travel or this airport. If he wanted mass panic the red powder idea that anyone smart enough to pull this off would have thought of would be a better option and more likely to produce some casualties as people fled in utter terror.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.
So you deny the D notice exists?
They are advisory and in no way used in the manner that you seem to be insinuating. Regardless, it is off-topic and irrelevant to this case.
My personal feelings are that the disruption is being instigated by an environmental action group of some sort. I think it is too sophisticated to have just been a prankster.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I don't know what the doer is trying to do or say. If he wanted a simple panic that would be easy. A drone with a few small bags of red powder, like powdered chalk or dyed flour, could hover over a city and release the powder to be spread by the down wash of the rotors and produce instant massive panic as peolle stampede in terror of a possible chemical or biological attack. That would so simple and obvious anyone would think of it.
So this guy isn't trying to produce a panic, he could do that pretty easy.
Doubt there would be panic at all. In a university town, most would think it a student prank. The vast majority wouldn't even notice, beyond tutting at the annoying toy buzzing about. Most cities, if you look anywhere else than straight ahead, you're a tourist, who should be banned from the pavement while people are on their way to/from work.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.
So you deny the D notice exists?
It's an entirely voluntary system applying only to major media outlets. Though people can face prosecution for broadcasting certain statements after the fact, no one in the UK is prevented from making 'unapproved statements'. Even on the state channels.
Does england have anything like our No fly list? If so he may be on it possibly wrongly and as such is retaliating against what he sees as his persecution. Again I don't know if england has a no fly list. If it does i'm sure British police are investigating peolle on it.
Or maybe he was a fired worker at the airport with a grudge. Again I donct doubt authorities are looking at that.
But I think he bad a grudge against air travel or this airport. If he wanted mass panic the red powder idea that anyone smart enough to pull this off would have thought of would be a better option and more likely to produce some casualties as people fled in utter terror.
The UK does have a no fly list but I don't think it likely that it's a protest against it. Most likely seems, to me, to be an environmental protest. We have a years long ongoing dispute about the expansion of airports in London.
They’re saying it’s not “terror related”, but it’s an effective terrorism tactic. Clearly everyone needs to wake up to the fact drones are a very cheap way to cause a huge amount of distruption and economic damage for which it is very difficult to be caught. Shutting down an international airport for a day and a half in the middle of the holiday season is far too easy for someone maliciously minded, and could be repeated over and over to seriously impact operations in a country.
Overread wrote: And yet at the same time you can freely buy chainsaws, cars, petrol, weed killer and a host of other items that are super dangerous if used in a certain way.
Thing is one must realise that the overwhelming majority of people don't want to do terrorist acts. We've had drones for years and this is the first major incident with them that's had far reaching impact on people. We have millions of cars on the road and lorries and dustcarts and other vehicles and no one regularly goes charging through pedestrians or building bombs out of weedkiller and petrol and the like.
Maybe first major but maybe we have been just lucky.
Howard A Treesong wrote: They’re saying it’s not “terror related”, but it’s an effective terrorism tactic. Clearly everyone needs to wake up to the fact drones are a very cheap way to cause a huge amount of distruption and economic damage for which it is very difficult to be caught. Shutting down an international airport for a day and a half in the middle of the holiday season is far too easy for someone maliciously minded, and could be repeated over and over to seriously impact operations in a country.
I really think that if you start to class economic fallout as terrorism, you are heading towards the suppression of all protest.
Rent strike = economic consequences = terrorism.
Fare strike = economic consequences = terrorism.
Mass demo closing major roads = economic consequences = terrorism.
and so on.
Terrorism has always been classed as violence in the pursuit of political ends.
Techpriestsupport wrote:I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
You understand wrong. Completely.
The existence of D-notices lends no support whatsoever to a claim that a D-notice gets "slapped" on "anything the government doesn't like". Media reporting on the Brexit debacle also tends to disapprove your 'point'. I'm sure May would love to slap D-notices all over the humiliating evidence of her government's utter failure and incompetence, but she hasn't.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
I'd love to know where you got that idea from.
I'm going to guess it's informed almost entirely by that time Churchill tried to "slap" a D-notice on The Mirror. Even though that failed, it's the most famous example of a D-notice.
Maybe Profumo.
Also, FWIW, while they're generally respected, a D-notice is not legally enforceable.
I'm almost totally ignorant about drones, so bear with me here.
How easy would it be, in theory, to attach an IED to a drone and fly it into, say, Trafalgar Square?
IMO, that's a potential huge difference between drones and other tools on the market that could also cause harm, like chainsaws.
I don't attach IEDs to drones, so I'm not an expert, but I'd imagine the biggest difficulty would be payload weight. Lower end drones can't take much weight. Once you solve that issue, I'd think it'd be trivial. You could probably even have it trigger via the drone transmitter and not even need to worry about having a separate detonator if you really wanted to.
Also, now I'm picturing drones armed with chainsaws attacking people.
Thing is though, heavily regulating drones wouldn't do very much to prevent malicious actors from using drones, because they're relatively trivial to construct yourself. All "clamping down" would do is provide yet another tool for the police/government/state security apparatus to use against everyday citizens and protestors - these aren't firearms, they don't require specialist gear and training to manufacture, just a 3D printer and some commonplace electronics parts.
As with so, so many other things that we keep making up new laws to supposedly combat(which are in reality either Security Theatre, or ways of slipping additional powers for the police etc through without the appropriate level of scrutiny), it's entirely possible to send anyone engaging in this kind of act away for a very long time using existing laws, which covers the "deterrent" side of things fine(assuming you buy the idea that deterrence actually works on people who were never going to commit the crime anyway).
The way to deal with incidents like this is to have appropriate countermeasures(net guns, interceptor drones, anti-drone lasers etc) in sensitive locations, and to prosecute anyone caught doing it to the full extent of the already perfectly adequate law - all the rabble rabble that will inevitably follow about cracking down on drone use is just politicians and the airport authorities covering their own arses for being completely unprepared.
Yodhrin wrote: - these aren't firearms, they don't require specialist gear and training to manufacture, just a 3D printer and some commonplace electronics parts.
Functional firearms can be made just with stuff from your hardware store. A drone would require a much larger amount of electrical and programming knowledge in addition to mechanical knowledge.
That people break laws is not an argument to not have laws.
'That people break laws is not an argument to not have laws' is not an argument to invent new laws to do something about people who break laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Functional firearms can be made just with stuff from your hardware store. A drone would require a much larger amount of electrical and programming knowledge in addition to mechanical knowledge.
I bet if we made new laws to require all firearms to possess fingerprint reading technology in order to be used, we could solve that issue overnight!
Grey Templar wrote: A drone would require a much larger amount of electrical and programming knowledge in addition to mechanical knowledge.
Not necessarily. Designing a new drone from scratch sure would require a lot of engineering knowledge (stability and control are NOT easy), but following blueprints to build one wouldn't be any harder than following the instructions to build that hardware store gun. You're literally just downloading some files for your 3d printer and then screwing together various off the shelf components. The only people an anti-drone law would stop are the "hold my beer and watch this" types that buy a toy and impulsively think it's really cool to go take pictures of planes as they're landing, and geofencing already deals with those idiots.
Excommunicatus wrote: How easy would it be, in theory, to attach an IED to a drone and fly it into, say, Trafalgar Square?
Extremely difficult. Payload weight is a major problem, and there are almost certainly easier ways to deliver a bomb that will kill way more people.
Depends on the drone. The Amazon delivery drones could drop off bombs, but as you say there would be way cheaper, and less noticeable, ways to get a bomb into Trafalgar square. Drones capable of delivering even a small package are quite large and noisy.
Arguing that building a drone-based IED is harder than, say, radicalizing a suicide-bomber reeks of naked assertions to me.
It might be. It might not be. I don't know and the overwhelming likelihood is that nobody else here does either.
So let's change it up. It is extremely unlikely you're going to be able to get an IED in a backpack into Wembley Stadium or onto the grounds of Westminster, what's to stop someone flying an IED-drone in? As far as I can see, nothing except budget.
And terrorist groups often aren't exactly short of a bob or two.
Terrorism doesn't have to be political, it has to be ideological.
Incredibly easy. It's already happening in Syria. However, you are limited in the size of your potential payload. Eg, you're not going to be able to pack as much in as you would a VBIED. The ones used in the middle east have been dropping home made dumb bombs the size of small mortars.
So it would appear to me that there are in fact compelling public policy reasons as to why drones should be legislated on a different basis to, inter alia, chainsaws.
Laws against murder don't stop murder in toto and you can argue that murder is almost always an impulsive act undertaken with no thought as to the consequences. In fact, most crimes are impulsive acts undertaken with no thought at all as to the consequences, so you can argue that the entire criminal law system is utterly ineffective and ought to be abolished.
Right?
The standard is not and has never, ever, ever, been perfection or the complete eradication of undesirable behaviours and pretending that it is is disingenuous.
Excommunicatus wrote: Arguing that building a drone-based IED is harder than, say, radicalizing a suicide-bomber reeks of naked assertions to me.
But you don't need to argue for suicide bombers. Park the truck bomb, walk away, detonate remotely. No suicide required. You just need the same willingness to kill people that a drone bomb requires.
So let's change it up. It is extremely unlikely you're going to be able to get an IED in a backpack into Wembley Stadium or onto the grounds of Westminster, what's to stop someone flying an IED-drone in? As far as I can see, nothing except budget.
What's to stop them from building/buying a mortar and shelling the crowd? Or just targeting the security lines (nice packed crowds, lots of kills) outside the checkpoints instead of bothering to get through the gates?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excommunicatus wrote: Laws against murder don't stop murder in toto and you can argue that murder is almost always an impulsive act undertaken with no thought as to the consequences. In fact, most crimes are impulsive acts undertaken with no thought at all as to the consequences, so you can argue that the entire criminal law system is utterly ineffective and ought to be abolished.
The point is that existing laws already cover the impulsive moron problem. The drunk idiot who impulsively thinks it would be cool to fly their toy around real planes is already dealt with by geofencing, they aren't going to screw around with custom software and such to defeat the restriction. And the people that have the desire and ability to defeat the existing restrictions are not going to be stopped by additional laws. Perfection is not the standard, but we should expect new laws to be effective and not just pass more laws because Something Must Be Done.
The point is that existing laws already cover the impulsive moron problem. The drunk idiot who impulsively thinks it would be cool to fly their toy around real planes is already dealt with by geofencing, they aren't going to screw around with custom software and such to defeat the restriction. And the people that have the desire and ability to defeat the existing restrictions are not going to be stopped by additional laws. Perfection is not the standard, but we should expect new laws to be effective and not just pass more laws because Something Must Be Done.
Rewriting the firmware of the drone to bypass any geofencing or other such safety features may be something that is already capable of being prosecuted under overly broad copyright and computer abuse and fraud laws as well. As well as those laws everyone has everywhere about "intent to cause harm" and so forth. Well, I dunno about the UK, but it would likely happen here.
And I agree with you. Much as writing law to add "... on a computer" to the end of existing laws didn't solve any of the world's problems and created a pile more, writing laws to be somewhat harsher than existing laws and slapping "...with a drone" on the end isn't really a reasonable solution.
Arguing that a truck-bombing is easier is just a variant naked assertion that I seriously doubt you're qualified to make out. And how do you get a truck to the kick-off dot at Wembley? Or onto the grounds of Westminster? Or into the middle of the pedestrianized Trafalgar Square?
I'd imagine the reason that people don't go around shelling the City of London with mortars is that there are strict laws governing the acquisition of such things.
And no, current laws don't cover the "impulsive moron", because those "impulsive morons" aren't deterred from committing crimes by the law because they don't consider the law before they commit criminal acts.
You have to draw a distinction between preventative and reactive laws. Laws already exist to deliver a punishment to somebody using a drone as an IED. As far as I can see, very little is preventing them from trying to. Quod erat demonstrandum at Gatwick. Other preventative laws meanwhile, like speed limits or driver licensing, are commonplace and largely uncontroversial.
Having to register a drone is a restriction on your autonomy for sure, but it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, restriction aimed at increasing public security.
And don't bring up Franklin unless you actually know what he said rather than the vox-populi version of what he said.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I don't know what the doer is trying to do or say. If he wanted a simple panic that would be easy. A drone with a few small bags of red powder, like powdered chalk or dyed flour, could hover over a city and release the powder to be spread by the down wash of the rotors and produce instant massive panic as peolle stampede in terror of a possible chemical or biological attack. That would so simple and obvious anyone would think of it.
So this guy isn't trying to produce a panic, he could do that pretty easy.
Doubt there would be panic at all. In a university town, most would think it a student prank. The vast majority wouldn't even notice, beyond tutting at the annoying toy buzzing about. Most cities, if you look anywhere else than straight ahead, you're a tourist, who should be banned from the pavement while people are on their way to/from work.
You sure about that? I know england has had repeated mass shooting attacks by terrorists, if someoe drone dispersed some red powder and claimed it was an attack it could get some people panicking.
There was Hungerford, then gun control was tightened and nothing like it ever happened again. Then there was Dunblane, then gun control was tightened and nothing like it ever happened again. Then there was that taxi-driver in Cumbria and nothing like it has happened since. That's three incidents over 31 years and none of them were terrorism.
Excommunicatus wrote: Arguing that a truck-bombing is easier is just a variant naked assertion that I seriously doubt you're qualified to make out.
I absolutely am qualified to make it because I know at least basic information about drones. The payload capacity of a drone is tiny, the payload capacity of a truck is huge. A 1 pound bomb is going to do much less damage than a 1000 pound bomb. Using a drone is putting severe limits on the size of the bomb for no real advantage in placement.
And how do you get a truck to the kick-off dot at Wembley? Or onto the grounds of Westminster? Or into the middle of the pedestrianized Trafalgar Square?
Why do you care about the exact location? If your goal is mass murder why would you prefer to drop a tiny bomb on the kick-off dot, where a player or two are the only people within the blast radius, when you could drive a truck bomb into the security line outside the stadium and kill a lot more people?
I'd imagine the reason that people don't go around shelling the City of London with mortars is that there are strict laws governing the acquisition of such things.
You can build a mortar. It's not a very complicated device. The explosive is the hard part, and that's just as illegal on a drone.
And no, current laws don't cover the "impulsive moron", because those "impulsive morons" aren't deterred from committing crimes by the law because they don't consider the law before they commit criminal acts.
Again, it's not about considering the law, it's about the difficulty of bypassing the existing laws. The idiot saying "hold my beer and watch this" isn't going to spend a bunch of time working on custom control software to bypass the geofencing required by existing laws, they're going to see the "not permitted" message and go find some other stupid thing to do with their drone.
Having to register a drone is a restriction on your autonomy for sure, but it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, restriction aimed at increasing public security.
It is a tiny restriction but it also produces essentially zero effect on public security. You can't just say Something Must Be Done and start passing laws without bothering to establish that they will have the desired effect.
You sure about that? I know england has had repeated mass shooting attacks by terrorists, if someoe drone dispersed some red powder and claimed it was an attack it could get some people panicking.
I repeat. You really need to work on your information sources because quite frankly, they are appalling.
Excommunicatus wrote: Having to register a drone is a restriction on your autonomy for sure, but it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, restriction aimed at increasing public security.
But think that through. What would it actually look like? That is, how could you implement it in such a way that it would be effective, useful, or even just not more bureaucratic cruft to wade through?
So, all implementations of it I have seen so far currently in the real world, applied to this scenario, would result in the drone's user being identified successfully 100% of the time so long as everyone is actively attempting to follow the law.
It only has a couple minor weaknesses. In order to be effective in identifying the drone's user:
1. The drone's owner must be the user
2. The drone's user didn't remove the FAA (or equivalent) designation (remember: the drone simply has to be marked, it could be a sticker!) on the side of it, AND the owner didn't simply skip applying such designation to begin with.
3. The drone was actually registered in the first place.
So effectively, the registration can be effectively circumvented by the user taking no action whatsoever via numbers 2 and/or 3.
So what does registration do to increase public security? I guess this would help the authorities to have identified the user responsible in this case so long as they were not acting in bad faith. The lack of registration would also indicate to the authorities that the person buzzing the airport for hours on end with their drone was in fact, after all, acting in bad faith as well. I'm sure that would be helpful because you could already start getting the process started for the ASBO.
You may know about drones, you're relying entirely on assumptions and naked assertions to suggest that putting together a truck-bomb is easier.
The location matters because different methods of attack are used for different targets. You can't blow up a target that has no road access or is behind strong security with a truck-bomb, no matter how big you make it and it's very unlikely you're going to get a wearable IED past security.
You can, seemingly, currently fly 1,000 1lb bombs into Wembley, however.
I'm really not qualified to get into an argument as to why people don't use mortars from the standpoint of ease of construction or ease of use. I don't know why they don't. The fact remains however that they don't, and there are laws against building or acquiring a mortar which, prima facie and granted a little syllogistically, supports my point not yours.
Howard A Treesong wrote: They’re saying it’s not “terror related”, but it’s an effective terrorism tactic. Clearly everyone needs to wake up to the fact drones are a very cheap way to cause a huge amount of distruption and economic damage for which it is very difficult to be caught. Shutting down an international airport for a day and a half in the middle of the holiday season is far too easy for someone maliciously minded, and could be repeated over and over to seriously impact operations in a country.
I really think that if you start to class economic fallout as terrorism, you are heading towards the suppression of all protest.
Rent strike = economic consequences = terrorism.
Fare strike = economic consequences = terrorism.
Mass demo closing major roads = economic consequences = terrorism.
and so on.
Terrorism has always been classed as violence in the pursuit of political ends.
My money is on a hostile state actor.
I really think it’s not shutting down protest. Not all forms of terrorism has to be direct violence depending on the definition. But forms of criminal warfare that attack infrastructure and the economy could instead be thought of as a fifth column instead of a terrorist if that’s an important difference to make, I don’t mind. After all, the people operating these drones are persistently trying to shut down an international airport by means that could potentially down a plane. There’s rather a difference between that and peaceful protest that inconveniences people.
I'm really not qualified to get into an argument as to why people don't use mortars from the standpoint of ease of construction or ease of use. I don't know why they don't. The fact remains however that they don't, and there are laws against building or acquiring a mortar which, prima facie and granted a little syllogistically, supports my point not yours.
I’m just old enough to recall the IRA making a mortar attack on Downing Street. It can be done, but I don’t think it’s a very easy means of fast attack given the equipment needed, preparation and a level of expertise.
Excommunicatus wrote: You may know about drones, you're relying entirely on assumptions and naked assertions to suggest that putting together a truck-bomb is easier.
No, I'm relying on obvious facts about payload capacity. A truck can carry more than a drone, period. Are you honestly trying to dispute this fact?
The location matters because different methods of attack are used for different targets. You can't blow up a target that has no road access or is behind strong security with a truck-bomb, no matter how big you make it and it's very unlikely you're going to get a wearable IED past security.
But, again, why does the target matter so much? If the goal is mass murder then there are plenty of accessible targets without using drones, and attacking those targets will kill a lot more people than any drone attack.
You can, seemingly, currently fly 1,000 1lb bombs into Wembley, however.
Ok, yes, if you coordinate a whole bunch of drones in a mass swarm attack without this massive operation being spotted by the police before you can launch the attack. One drone shutting down an airport is hard to chase. Someone trying to buy 1000 drones is a little less stealthy.
I'm really not qualified to get into an argument as to why people don't use mortars from the standpoint of ease of construction or ease of use. I don't know why they don't. The fact remains however that they don't, and there are laws against building or acquiring a mortar which, prima facie and granted a little syllogistically, supports my point not yours.
If you aren't qualified to comment then why are you assuming that it is the law successfully preventing anyone from doing it and not other factors?
However difficult it is to build a drone bomb or a mortar or whatever, there is very little to nothing standing in the way of renting or stealing a truck and just driving it into an enormous crowd. Laws don't protect you from that happening, the fact most people are not homicidal maniacs does.
You cannot stop malicious actors from doing this from a legal standpoint. Drones are too easy and cheap to get, and if you ban then, they're easy to build from scratch with off-the-shelf components (I've done it), or with 3d printing some parts you need (which i also have done). The software to program and drive them is free and open source.
There will need to be a technological solution, ie a signal jammer, which is presumably exactly what they are asking the military to do now. Geofencing will work for the vast, overwhelming majority of other users.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I really think it’s not shutting down protest. Not all forms of terrorism has to be direct violence depending on the definition. But forms of criminal warfare that attack infrastructure and the economy could instead be thought of as a fifth column instead of a terrorist if that’s an important difference to make, I don’t mind. After all, the people operating these drones are persistently trying to shut down an international airport by means that could potentially down a plane. There’s rather a difference between that and peaceful protest that inconveniences people.
Yes, terrorism has to be direct violence (or at least the credible threat of it), that's the whole point of the term. Terrorism is the use of violence, and the fear of continued violence, against non-military targets to achieve political goals. Shutting down an airport because LOL THIS IS SO FUNNY is not terrorism. Shutting down an airport without a credible threat of violence (and a drone is a pretty damn ineffective anti-aircraft weapon) is not terrorism. Blocking a road to hurt the economy is not terrorism. Etc. Using the term "terrorism" to apply to any random inconvenience dilutes the meaning of the term and helps the political groups that use "fighting terrorism" as an excuse to advance their agenda in ways that do little, if anything, to stop actual terrorism.
No, I'm not disputing that a truck can carry more than a drone.
I'm pointing out all the other parts of assembling and detonating a truck-bomb that you're just ignoring for convenience.
'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.
Weird, huh?
Your definition of terrorism is also completely wrong. Terrorism is a specified act carried out for an ideological purpose. Not all offences can be terrorism, regardless of the intent, and an act can be terrorism without having a political intent.
Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.
But if I’m mistaken I’m happy to call it something else, I’ve already suggested that it amounts to a fifth column, particularly if sponsored by another state. I’d hardly call what these drones are doing to the airport a “random inconvenience” though in much the same way that pointing lasers into plane cockpits isn’t. Another issue that’s occurred in recent years. I’m not claiming that anything like blocking a road is “terrorism”, but persistently threatening the safety of aircraft is rather quite a bit closer.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.
Excommunicatus wrote: 'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.
Weird, huh?
The only thing that is weird is that you think the laws preventing you from renting or stealing a truck so you can murder people is what stops truck-based murder. Perhaps murdering people should also be outlawed.
Excommunicatus wrote: 'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.
Weird, huh?
The only thing that is weird is that you think the laws preventing you from renting or stealing a truck so you can murder people is what stops truck-based murder. Perhaps murdering people should also be outlawed.
That's a strawman that's in direct opposition to my explicit statements.
Excommunicatus wrote: I'm pointing out all the other parts of assembling and detonating a truck-bomb that you're just ignoring for convenience.
Those parts apply the same to a drone bomb.
'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.
Pretty hard? You mean like "go to the U-Haul store, give them your credit card and driver's license, and drive off with a truck"? A process that anyone with a valid license (AKA virtually everyone) and enough money in the bank that their card isn't declined can do in maybe 15 minutes?
Your definition of terrorism is also completely wrong. Terrorism is a specified act carried out for an ideological purpose. Not all offences can be terrorism, regardless of the intent, and an act can be terrorism without having a political intent.
Uh, no, that is not at all correct. Political intent is the entire point of terrorism! It's why killing someone for a cause can be labeled terrorism, but killing someone to steal their wallet or because you caught them in bed with your spouse is not.
Which part of assembling an IED-drone requires you to present a card issued by a financial institution and a government-accredited piece of identification that certifies you're competent to use a drone?
No part.
I can get a drone right now. I can't hire a truck. But do continue to rely on and simultaneously ignore these facts at your convenience.
Read s.1(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
You're wrong and the very first subsection of the very first section of the on-point legislation says, unequivocally, that you're wrong.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.
They would be counted even if nobody is killed purely by coincidence, but that's not what is happening here. It's an act of violence that is likely to kill people, and results in significant direct destruction of property. This drone incident is much more like a temporary roadblock. Nobody is killed, no significant property is destroyed, and the only damage is the inconvenience of not being able to use the airport for a while.
But if I’m mistaken I’m happy to call it something else, I’ve already suggested that it amounts to a fifth column, particularly if sponsored by another state. I’d hardly call what these drones are doing to the airport a “random inconvenience” though in much the same way that pointing lasers into plane cockpits isn’t. Another issue that’s occurred in recent years. I’m not claiming that anything like blocking a road is “terrorism”, but persistently threatening the safety of aircraft is rather quite a bit closer.
It's not a meaningful threat. Even a direct hit (something extremely difficult to do) is unlikely to do anything, commercial aircraft are required by law to be capable of flying just fine on one engine and a drone lacks the mass to be capable of doing much damage to any other part of the plane. The threat from lasers is much higher, including potential injury to the pilots even if the plane is not harmed. Shutting down the airport is a policy that even small risks are not acceptable in commercial aviation, not an acknowledgement of a major threat.
Pretty hard? You mean like "go to the U-Haul store, give them your credit card and driver's license, and drive off with a truck"? A process that anyone with a valid license (AKA virtually everyone) and enough money in the bank that their card isn't declined can do in maybe 15 minutes?
Stop misleading people! We all know you need valid proof of insurance too.
Excommunicatus wrote: Which part of assembling an IED-drone requires you to present a card issued by a financial institution and a government-accredited piece of identification that certifies you're competent to use a drone?
If you can't even get a basic driver's license and a credit/debit card with $100 (or an accomplice with those things) then how exactly are you getting a drone?
I can't hire a truck.
Really? Which of those two things do you lack? I find it hard to believe that a functioning adult in 2018 isn't going to have them. Or does Canada have much stricter laws than the US?
Excommunicatus wrote: Which part of assembling an IED-drone requires you to present a card issued by a financial institution and a government-accredited piece of identification that certifies you're competent to use a drone?
If you can't even get a basic driver's license and a credit/debit card with $100 (or an accomplice with those things) then how exactly are you getting a drone?
I can't hire a truck.
Really? Which of those two things do you lack? I find it hard to believe that a functioning adult in 2018 isn't going to have them. Or does Canada have much stricter laws than the US?
Ebay. Kijiji. Classified ads. Any one of a million other ways you can order online without a credit card or ID.
I have neither a credit card nor a driving license. I choose the first, the second was inflicted upon me.
Excommunicatus you do realise that the general argument is talking in general terms not about how you can't build an IED or whatever.
In general most people can get access to vehicles of many kinds. Even large lorries and tractors if you go on the right course to get the training - and the only thing needed there is a fee.
The only difficulty comes is that the larger, typically the more ID you need to present at various stages so you generate a paper trail.
If you don't care about the paper trial aspect then you've no worries about it. Otherwise you can easily get hold of a lot of second hand vehicles with little ID requirements. Heck you can pick up scrap and repair it to a basic functional level if you want.
+
As for living without a car; if someone is in the Urban landscape that's very possible. Heck I know people in London who have never driven and are in their 30-40s. In that landscape you can rely on functional and affordable public transport. Granted you're a bit limited going travelling; but you can still do it. It's in smaller urban areas, towns and villages and the countryside where a lack of car is crippling to getting around.
Overread wrote: In general most people can get access to vehicles of many kinds. Even large lorries and tractors if you go on the right course to get the training - and the only thing needed there is a fee.
The only difficulty comes is that the larger, typically the more ID you need to present at various stages so you generate a paper trail.
If you don't care about the paper trial aspect then you've no worries about it. Otherwise you can easily get hold of a lot of second hand vehicles with little ID requirements. Heck you can pick up scrap and repair it to a basic functional level if you want.
Exactly. The existence of an occasional person who can't get a truck doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people can get one with very little effort. They aren't hard to get at all, the only requirements (credit card and driver's license) are effectively basic life requirements and an incredibly low bar to cross. Having to spend 5 minutes taking a driving test to get a license is not going to deter someone who is determined to commit mass murder, nor is having to get a credit card that banks are eagerly throwing at anyone capable of signing the application form.
Again, the point is not elimination. The point is prevention, to make it harder to attempt these things, and to assist in investigation and prosecution after the fact.
I have literally no idea how to construct an IED and no interest in learning, so it forms no part of my argument.
My argument is, stripped to its core, that licensing and/or registration schemes exist to mitigate harm and demonstrably do mitigate harm, therefore I see no reason why similar schemes shouldn't apply to drones which also have potential to cause (massive) harm.
No, you're not going to stop somebody who is determined and doesn't care about the consequences but again, laws about offences against the person don't stop offences against the person, but nobody seriously suggests that means we shouldn't have laws criminalizing offences against the person.
So why is that 'logic' applicable here?
The argument against basically boils down to 'but muh freedom' while ignoring all the other licensing and registration schemes you already deal with.
I'd happily stand in my post office queue for thirty minutes to get a license for my drone if I thought it might prevent a terrorist atrocity. Apparently the time of others is worth potential vast loss of life.
Overread wrote: In general most people can get access to vehicles of many kinds. Even large lorries and tractors if you go on the right course to get the training - and the only thing needed there is a fee.
The only difficulty comes is that the larger, typically the more ID you need to present at various stages so you generate a paper trail.
If you don't care about the paper trial aspect then you've no worries about it. Otherwise you can easily get hold of a lot of second hand vehicles with little ID requirements. Heck you can pick up scrap and repair it to a basic functional level if you want.
Exactly. The existence of an occasional person who can't get a truck doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people can get one with very little effort. They aren't hard to get at all, the only requirements (credit card and driver's license) are effectively basic life requirements and an incredibly low bar to cross. Having to spend 5 minutes taking a driving test to get a license is not going to deter someone who is determined to commit mass murder, nor is having to get a credit card that banks are eagerly throwing at anyone capable of signing the application form.
So you've moved on to pretending that people who commit terrorism all have their finances and IDs in order. Cool.
I live on the fringes of society and, even if I wanted to, could not acquire a credit card precisely because of my radical views.
But yeah, Barclays is throwing credit cards at jihadis and Irish nationalists.
The only way your standing in line at the post office to license your drone is going to prevent a terrorist atrocity is if you yourself would have been committing it otherwise. People drive unregistered, uninsured cars without drivers licenses all the time without terroristic intentions. Also, in the U.S. you are required to register your drone with the FAA already. Still wouldn't stop someone from simply not doing that and using it to cause mayhem if they wanted to.
You can get a credit card even without a credit history because everyone has to start somewhere, it would be limited in size and the interest higher, but you’re not unable to acquire one, you choose not to.
Excommunicatus wrote: And yet driving license schemes make our roads much safer than they otherwise would be, regardless of the fact that they're not perfect.
Sooner or later y'all are going to have to stop simply ignoring that inconvenient point. .
I'm not sure how good that analogy is. People get permits and license their cars because they are generally very expensive - the second most expensive thing they probably own next to their house - physically large, and operating one without any proficiency could easily kill them.
None of these things are going to apply to consumer drones. Passing laws to require registering them, passing laws to force proficiency, etc, are all totally meaningless since it's already unlawful to fly over an airport now and someone is doing it. Under your current legal regime, with no additional legislation, this is already a incredibly rare, unprecedented event. Do you really need new laws to prevent this thing which is already totally illegal and has only happened once? Would they work?
I'm not in the "since criminals break laws, no point in having any" camp; but there is a distinction to be made between passing meaningful legislation that has some level of efficacy, and passing legislation so you can be seen Doing Something About It.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.
But if I’m mistaken I’m happy to call it something else, I’ve already suggested that it amounts to a fifth column, particularly if sponsored by another state. I’d hardly call what these drones are doing to the airport a “random inconvenience” though in much the same way that pointing lasers into plane cockpits isn’t. Another issue that’s occurred in recent years. I’m not claiming that anything like blocking a road is “terrorism”, but persistently threatening the safety of aircraft is rather quite a bit closer.
Terrorism is violence specifically aimed at civilians. If violence is aimed at military personnel it would be an insurrection. If there is no aim to cause casualties but just to cause property/economical damage, then the correct term is sabotage. Of course, in reality the boundaries between sabotage, terrorism and insurrection can be vague.
And of course, plenty of people throw the term "terrorism" around at everything they disagree with, so it has kinda become a meaningless buzzword.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
I'd love to know where you got that idea from.
I'm going to guess it's informed almost entirely by that time Churchill tried to "slap" a D-notice on The Mirror. Even though that failed, it's the most famous example of a D-notice.
Maybe Profumo.
Also, FWIW, while they're generally respected, a D-notice is not legally enforceable.
I've seen English movies where some official says "D notice situation" and the media is forced not to report on it.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.
So you deny the D notice exists?
It's an entirely voluntary system applying only to major media outlets. Though people can face prosecution for broadcasting certain statements after the fact, no one in the UK is prevented from making 'unapproved statements'. Even on the state channels.
Does england have anything like our No fly list? If so he may be on it possibly wrongly and as such is retaliating against what he sees as his persecution. Again I don't know if england has a no fly list. If it does i'm sure British police are investigating peolle on it.
Or maybe he was a fired worker at the airport with a grudge. Again I donct doubt authorities are looking at that.
But I think he bad a grudge against air travel or this airport. If he wanted mass panic the red powder idea that anyone smart enough to pull this off would have thought of would be a better option and more likely to produce some casualties as people fled in utter terror.
The UK does have a no fly list but I don't think it likely that it's a protest against it. Most likely seems, to me, to be an environmental protest. We have a years long ongoing dispute about the expansion of airports in London.
Now look, I saw video of a women being surrounded and arrested by English coos for standing in public and quietly reading out loud a list of British soldiers killed in Iraq, because itcs illegal to list British dead in military actions apparently because it's "bad for morale". So don't tell me Britain doesn't have censorship.
So out of curiosity, do the police not have one shotgun between them to quickly shoot the thing down? Rifles of course being unsuitable for that kind of thing.
The effective range of a shotgun is nowhere near far enough to hit it to any meaningful effect from the ground, and to do it from the air probably requires 3 days worth of filling out risk assessment paperwork, after at least a week to write the risk assessment paperwork for them to fill out in the first instance.
A rifle would be a better prospect, unless they're deliberately flying in an evasive patterns, which nine of the footage I've seen suggests. Then again, I've seen guys reliably hit clay pigeons with .22s, so it might still be plausible.
So, as an american I want to ask my British comrades, could this end up being what I believe the British call "hooliganism"? I've heard that phrase tossed around in European matters, like soccer hooligans.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I've seen English movies where some official says "D notice situation" and the media is forced not to report on it.
Because, as we know, movies are definitely a reliable source of information and would never present an inaccurate use of a law because it makes a better story.
Now look, I saw video of a women being surrounded and arrested by English coos for standing in public and quietly reading out loud a list of British soldiers killed in Iraq, because itcs illegal to list British dead in military actions apparently because it's "bad for morale". So don't tell me Britain doesn't have censorship.
{citation needed}
Can you provide a credible source for this? A quick search turns up nothing at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: A rifle would be a better prospect, unless they're deliberately flying in an evasive patterns, which nine of the footage I've seen suggests. Then again, I've seen guys reliably hit clay pigeons with .22s, so it might still be plausible.
Oh god no, a rifle would be terrible for this kind of thing. Any shot that misses is going to come down miles away with lethal force. Shooting at an air target with a rifle would be extreme irresponsibility.
Excommunicatus wrote: And yet driving license schemes make our roads much safer than they otherwise would be, regardless of the fact that they're not perfect.
That's not the point. Driver's licenses aren't intended to prevent people from maliciously using cars to kill people, they're intended to keep untrained law-abiding drivers off the road. They work because most people aren't trying to kill someone with a car, if the state won't let them drive until they have a bit of training and pass a test they're not going to drive. For someone who wants to kill people with a car the license does absolutely nothing to stop them. Virtually anyone can pass the test, so anyone with malicious intent is just going to get a license and then go do the awful thing.
The equivalent to a driver's license is the existing geofencing in drones. The average law-abiding person who isn't intending to hurt anyone is already unable to fly near airports, adding another law on the subject isn't going to accomplish anything. It's just passing a law so that you can be seen Doing Something About It.
Also because of no credit history.
Introductory credit cards exist. Seriously, have you not seen banks trying to give high-rate credit cards to every college student dumb enough to sign up for one in exchange for a free t-shirt? You're going to pay a higher rate than you would with a better credit history, but I seriously doubt that "renting your murder weapon is going to cost you $5 extra in a few months" is going to do anything to slow down someone who wants to get a truck to kill people.
They wouldn't. I have simplified the process because the intricacies of my life are none of anyone else's business.
First of all, I seriously doubt you're right about this. But even if you're somehow the incredibly rare exception and unable to get a credit card of any kind that is not true of the vast majority of people. There is no reason to believe that the potential mass murder is in the 0.000001% of the population that is unable to accomplish something as easy and basic as renting a moving truck, buying a junk car off the internet, etc.
Basic physics? Yeah, I am. Shooting rifles without a solid backstop is a well-known hazard that every responsible rifle owner knows about. You do not do it because, unlike a shotgun pellet, a rifle bullet is capable of being lethal miles away if there's nothing to stop it.
Shooting a rifle would definitely be a very bad idea. Bullets can travel for several miles if they're aimed even slightly up, and a drone isn't going to slow it down much.
Shotgun pellets would be better but you'd still have a good amount of risk for injury. Beanbag rounds though might be the best option, aside from an actual netgun.
Ok I have to wonder this: could a real helicopter get above these things and use it's tremendous down wash from the rotor to litteraly force these things down? Anyone whose even seen footage real helicopters knows they produce an extremely hard downward wind force.
For those who need a citation for everything...
If a real helicopter could get above one of these the down wash might be enough to cause it to tumble and crash. Is that an option?
Techpriestsupport wrote: If a real helicopter could get whose one of these the down wash might be enough to cause it to tumble and crash. Is that an option?
The force would probably do it, if you could line it up and the drone was low enough to not be able to recover before crashing. The hard part would be getting right on top of it and not flying into terrain in the process of trying to chase down a low-altitude drone. The real question is if you're in position to blow it down why not drop a net on it and ensure a kill.
The real reason not to do that is the same reason the drones are shutting down the airport in the first place. Don't want your heli to have a collision.
I had the idea that you could build a wide incinerator, something like a giant cooker gas ring, on the back of a van.
Drive it under the drone, and the draught of hot air will reduce the drone's effective lift, causing it to lose altitude.
It's sound in terms of physics, but impractical as a real device.
Apparently eagles are quite good against drones.
The University of Delft is having a "Drone Clash" event at which teams are trying to brainstorm anti-drone measures. The organiser was on Radio 4 last night, and said that the things you need to do to counter a drone are.
1. Spot it.
2. Recognise it as a hostile drone.
3. Engage it to capture or destroy.
Eagles can do this already. The problems are they need training and handling, and could be injured when attacking a drone.
Grey Templar wrote: The real reason not to do that is the same reason the drones are shutting down the airport in the first place. Don't want your heli to have a collision.
I think we can trust professional, experienced pilots to not fly into a building.
Grey Templar wrote: The real reason not to do that is the same reason the drones are shutting down the airport in the first place. Don't want your heli to have a collision.
I think we can trust professional, experienced pilots to not fly into a building.
A collision with the drone, which could result in a crash. And maneuvering at low altitude is dangerous, and a lot harder than you might think. It's very easy to get focused on a target and lose situational awareness, and at low altitude you have very little margin for error.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think we can trust professional, experienced pilots to not fly into a building.
Peregrine wrote: A collision with the drone, which could result in a crash. And maneuvering at low altitude is dangerous, and a lot harder than you might think. It's very easy to get focused on a target and lose situational awareness, and at low altitude you have very little margin for error.
Peregrine is right, and I want to expand on this a bit - zipping around at low altitude in a rotorcraft is actually pretty dangerous. The same downforce you're using to force the drone down can crash the helicopter if you descend into it - it forms vortexes at the tips of the blades that cause you to lose lift, and increasing throttle just accelerates the process. It's called vortex ring state. It applies to rotorcraft regardless of size - drone pilots can crash their drones line this too if they descend straight down too fast, which is why commercial drones come down so slow when doing automatic landings.
You can just fly out of it (in any direction but increasing throttle), but you have to be aware it's happening, and have altitude to do so. I understand the argument "the best military pilots would be trying to do this", but the US sent literally the best chopper pilots in the service to fly in for the Osama Bin Laden raid, and that's exactly how they crashed one of the choppers (it was overweight, which didn't help either).
So it's not a terrible plan, but it's certainly not trivial, either. I presume they weight the hassle of people not flying vs the possibility of a chopper crash and decided to try other options, which seem to have worked out.
Additionally, the drone can simply just fly away; I've seen this exact thing when a police helicopter tried to force down a drone in this manner in a national park on Youtube.
‘D-notices’ are not enforceable but the media tend to abide by them, British media anyway. If they didn’t they’d probably be bottom of the pile for any sort of interviews and the like afterwards to deter them, but there’s not a legal penalty.
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently eagles are quite good against drones.
The University of Delft is having a "Drone Clash" event at which teams are trying to brainstorm anti-drone measures. The organiser was on Radio 4 last night, and said that the things you need to do to counter a drone are.
1. Spot it.
2. Recognise it as a hostile drone.
3. Engage it to capture or destroy.
Eagles can do this already. The problems are they need training and handling, and could be injured when attacking a drone.
They were actually doing this in the Netherlands for about a year. They wound up scrapping it for the reasons you listed - it was expensive, required training, and some drones have carbon fiber props which means that the bird is essentially trying to grab an open blender if they comefrom overhead. The birds also sometimes would get distracted, but I'm going to blame that on the training; I imagine we're not as good at falconry as we once were.
Anyway they eventually decided they didn't have enough rogue drones to be worth all of that.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think we can trust professional, experienced pilots to not fly into a building.
Peregrine wrote: A collision with the drone, which could result in a crash. And maneuvering at low altitude is dangerous, and a lot harder than you might think. It's very easy to get focused on a target and lose situational awareness, and at low altitude you have very little margin for error.
Peregrine is right, and I want to expand on this a bit - zipping around at low altitude in a rotorcraft is actually pretty dangerous. The same downforce you're using to force the drone down can crash the helicopter if you descend into it - it forms vortexes at the tips of the blades that cause you to lose lift, and increasing throttle just accelerates the process. It's called vortex ring state. It applies to rotorcraft regardless of size - drone pilots can crash their drones line this too if they descend straight down too fast, which is why commercial drones come down so slow when doing automatic landings.
You can just fly out of it (in any direction but increasing throttle), but you have to be aware it's happening, and have altitude to do so. I understand the argument "the best military pilots would be trying to do this", but the US sent literally the best chopper pilots in the service to fly in for the Osama Bin Laden raid, and that's exactly how they crashed one of the choppers (it was overweight, which didn't help either).
So it's not a terrible plan, but it's certainly not trivial, either. I presume they weight the hassle of people not flying vs the possibility of a chopper crash and decided to try other options, which seem to have worked out.
Additionally, the drone can simply just fly away; I've seen this exact thing when a police helicopter tried to force down a drone in this manner in a national park on Youtube.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
I'd love to know where you got that idea from.
I'm going to guess it's informed almost entirely by that time Churchill tried to "slap" a D-notice on The Mirror. Even though that failed, it's the most famous example of a D-notice.
Maybe Profumo.
Also, FWIW, while they're generally respected, a D-notice is not legally enforceable.
I've seen English movies where some official says "D notice situation" and the media is forced not to report on it.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.
A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.
A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.
What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.
So you deny the D notice exists?
It's an entirely voluntary system applying only to major media outlets. Though people can face prosecution for broadcasting certain statements after the fact, no one in the UK is prevented from making 'unapproved statements'. Even on the state channels.
Does england have anything like our No fly list? If so he may be on it possibly wrongly and as such is retaliating against what he sees as his persecution. Again I don't know if england has a no fly list. If it does i'm sure British police are investigating peolle on it.
Or maybe he was a fired worker at the airport with a grudge. Again I donct doubt authorities are looking at that.
But I think he bad a grudge against air travel or this airport. If he wanted mass panic the red powder idea that anyone smart enough to pull this off would have thought of would be a better option and more likely to produce some casualties as people fled in utter terror.
The UK does have a no fly list but I don't think it likely that it's a protest against it. Most likely seems, to me, to be an environmental protest. We have a years long ongoing dispute about the expansion of airports in London.
Now look, I saw video of a women being surrounded and arrested by English coos for standing in public and quietly reading out loud a list of British soldiers killed in Iraq, because itcs illegal to list British dead in military actions apparently because it's "bad for morale". So don't tell me Britain doesn't have censorship.
I don't believe you.
Britain does have censorship and no one has suggested otherwise.
Well, that's rather different from the version of the story you presented, isn't it? Protesting where she was is the crime, not the protest itself, nor its content. Certainly no nonsense to do with restricting war dead due to morale. Everyone of them is read out in parliament at PMQs broadcast on the flagship political news show on the state broadcaster and on the 24 hour parliament channel.
There are multiple issues with trying to shoot down drones, they’re either out of range or the risk of missing is too great.
I’m guessing their preferred methods are electronic countermeasures that cause it to crash or paralyse it long enough to shoot down more safety, measures like those used to prevent IEDs being radio/phone detonated while being defused. But the exact techniques/technology used against IEDs are somewhat secretive.
I wonder if these people were arrested on the basis of some technological tracking or simply by a call from the public witnessing them taking off/landing. The former would give you more assurances.
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently eagles are quite good against drones.
The University of Delft is having a "Drone Clash" event at which teams are trying to brainstorm anti-drone measures. The organiser was on Radio 4 last night, and said that the things you need to do to counter a drone are.
1. Spot it.
2. Recognise it as a hostile drone.
3. Engage it to capture or destroy.
Eagles can do this already. The problems are they need training and handling, and could be injured when attacking a drone.
They were actually doing this in the Netherlands for about a year. They wound up scrapping it for the reasons you listed - it was expensive, required training, and some drones have carbon fiber props which means that the bird is essentially trying to grab an open blender if they comefrom overhead. The birds also sometimes would get distracted, but I'm going to blame that on the training; I imagine we're not as good at falconry as we once were.
Honestly whilst a large bird of prey could take them down chances are the biggest training issue is that the best place to attack the drone is from underneath whilst most birds of prey prefer to attack from the top. A flying bird has all its danger (beak and claws) on the underside whilst its vision is also best there. A drone instead has all its danger on the top with the rotors.
Airports have made extensive use of birds of prey, both as a live threat (fly the bird every so often to scare off others) and in hunting down pigeons and other birds that can sometimes nest in hangers and warehouses (trains and other companies also use falconers for this). Distraction is always a risk with any trained animal that has to operate remotely from the person issuing orders.
That said I suspect the falconers aspect is the same as in any animal training situation in that many now take it up as a hobby later in life rather than being born into a family who work with them every day. Ergo an adult generations ago would have been trained in how to handle and training birds since they were old enough to walk, so by the time they were an adult they'd already have a good 15 years training during the period in life where we most readily learn.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that there is no situation Grayling cannot make worse.
The two people arrested on suspicion of the “criminal use of drones” that caused severe disruption at Gatwick airport this week are a 47-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman, both from Crawley in West Sussex, police have said.
,,surely this cannot be "just" a protest against noise or expansion ?
,,surely this cannot be "just" a protest against noise or expansion ?
It could be - as we've said several times in this thread, this level of disruption isn't exceptionally complex nor beyond the average person to be able to achieve. Also I'd have expected a more major/serious terror/disruption group to have put out noise and claim the disruption as their own - using it as a platform to advertise their issue/agenda. So the lack of any actual noise about it and its continued impact with no noise suggested it was a small, possibly isolated group
Grey Templar wrote: The real reason not to do that is the same reason the drones are shutting down the airport in the first place. Don't want your heli to have a collision.
I think we can trust professional, experienced pilots to not fly into a building.
A police helicopter did precisely that in Glasgow a few years ago. There was also one in London which collided with a crane and fell into the street. And those things they hit weren't moving around and trying to collide with them.
And just to perfectly illustrate my earlier point that the existing law is entirely adequate to deal with instances like this(from the Guardian article on the arrest):
The man and woman are being questioned “on suspicion of disrupting services of civil aviation in a way likely to endanger the safety of operations or persons” – offences that carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on conviction.
Seriously what more deterrent can you get in a civilised country than sodding life imprisonment?
Howard A Treesong wrote: You can get a credit card even without a credit history because everyone has to start somewhere, it would be limited in size and the interest higher, but you’re not unable to acquire one, you choose not to.
What good is a credit card you can't afford to use?
1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.
I've previously thought the best way to get rid of drones is with other drones. When I think "drone" I tend to think of a quadrotor, but something like a sling-launched turbojet or rocket powered drone that itself carries nets, short ranged projectiles or maybe even just crashes through quadrotors might be a way to go.
Maybe something human assisted, so a human points it in the general direction of a drone and then automated targeting systems take over and propel it at high speed at the drone you're trying to get rid of.
As fun as it sounds shooting down drones with rifles/helicopters/eagles/whatever, you'd think kids these days would be able to come up with something smarter to take them down.
More likely whoever was controlling the drones might have sat in a car at the end of their driveway/outside their house for a time. Or they were seen with remote controls in the area but for other devices etc....
I don't see any reason for them to be "state actors" or the like as it doesn't really benefit anyone to set it up like that. Esp when the airport is offering £50K in reward money.
Ahhh ... I wasn't really being so serious, but I guess ... perhaps I was in my mind ...
Overread wrote: More likely whoever was controlling the drones might have sat in a car at the end of their driveway/outside their house for a time. Or they were seen with remote controls in the area but for other devices etc....
I dunno ... does that "really" sound so much more plausible than checking out a few civi drone users in their free time in advance and just "dropping the hint" when advantageous?
I don't see any reason for them to be "state actors" or the like as it doesn't really benefit anyone to set it up like that. Esp when the airport is offering £50K in reward money.
But who else would it benefit? There've been no claims/assertions by environmental groups or anti-runway groups or save the ducks groups (eco groups, I guess?).
OK, granted, no claims by any state actors, either, but there wouldn't be, would there ...
Azreal13 wrote: 1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.
Ah... yeah. Doesn't work. I tried it, and you remain one fiscal emergency away from missing payments and wrecked credit. In the meantime various fees eat up what little money you have.
The only real solution is earning more... easier said than done the past decade or so.
Azreal13 wrote: 1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.
Ah... yeah. Doesn't work. I tried it, and you remain one fiscal emergency away from missing payments and wrecked credit. In the meantime various fees eat up what little money you have.
The only real solution is earning more... easier said than done the past decade or so.
Yes but the idea is to only pay for things you 100% already have the money for, ergo you're not using the card to pay for extra things. So groceries that you were already going to buy and already have the money for. That way you're never going over the card limit and you're already well within the minimum payment threshold and can pay it off fast.
Of course the only way to have more actual money is to earn more; credit cards are not free money not are they a solution for anything but short term cash shortages. As soon as you're living above your means on a credit card you are indeed running a risk that you'll miss a payment.
Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.
To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it.
Azreal13 wrote: 1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.
Ah... yeah. Doesn't work. I tried it, and you remain one fiscal emergency away from missing payments and wrecked credit. In the meantime various fees eat up what little money you have.
The only real solution is earning more... easier said than done the past decade or so.
Yes but the idea is to only pay for things you 100% already have the money for, ergo you're not using the card to pay for extra things. So groceries that you were already going to buy and already have the money for. That way you're never going over the card limit and you're already well within the minimum payment threshold and can pay it off fast.
Of course the only way to have more actual money is to earn more; credit cards are not free money not are they a solution for anything but short term cash shortages. As soon as you're living above your means on a credit card you are indeed running a risk that you'll miss a payment.
For a lot of people just living is is living above their means, and one unexpected expense is fiscal ruin. Pay for a lot of people is just that bad. And it doesn't matter if the money used to cover that emergency would have been used to pay off the credit card, the gas bill, or the rent, their credit rating still gets trashed.
But perhaps we should start another thread about this, and not clutter this thread with something so far off-topic.
On the subject at hand... heaven help whoever was running those drones if they get caught. The criminal penalties are bad enough, but consider the potential civil liabilities. The airport could sue, all the airlines operating from that airport could sue, each and every person whose flight was cancelled could sue... that's enough civil liability to make a billionaire flinch!
Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.
To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it.
Eh the thing is if the officer had said no to that question then the media would have said "Police refuse to admit they could be wrong".
Sometimes its darn hard to speak to the media and not have them miss-represent what you've said if they want to do it. Of course there are tricks and some superstars spend years getting trained in how to speak to the media in a specific way so that what they say can't be "easily" twisted (though even then trashy newspapers and those with an agenda can still do it). This is especially true in the internet age where there's a huge desire for those click-bait type titles all over the place (personally I think we are reaching a near saturation point where they will eventually stop working and filp over to something else)
From the article:
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.
It is good that he clarifies that they are working with human beings. I was afraid they were going to work with aliens or animals.
The police have also confirmed they have recovered a damaged drone. There was a statement released by the police (on Twitter!) that scotched the 'no drone' rumours - they confirmed there definitely was one or more.
The damaged drone might not be the drone used at the airport, if there was one.
OTOH if it's true that an interception drone or other anti-drone equipment was used to attack the drone, this damaged one could be the actual drone but we might never hear the details because they would want t keep the defensive measures secret.
nfe wrote: So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.
Overread wrote: Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.
To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it
Eh the thing is if the officer had said no to that question then the media would have said "Police refuse to admit they could be wrong".
Sometimes its darn hard to speak to the media and not have them miss-represent what you've said if they want to do it. Of course there are tricks and some superstars spend years getting trained in how to speak to the media in a specific way so that what they say can't be "easily" twisted (though even then trashy newspapers and those with an agenda can still do it). This is especially true in the internet age where there's a huge desire for those click-bait type titles all over the place (personally I think we are reaching a near saturation point where they will eventually stop working and filp over to something else)
Indeed. If anyone has ever wondered why politicians or other officials talk in such a mealy-mouthed, rehearsed manner and wondered why they can't just talk straight and give us the facts.....that's why.
Kilkrazy wrote: The damaged drone might not be the drone used at the airport, if there was one.
OTOH if it's true that an interception drone or other anti-drone equipment was used to attack the drone, this damaged one could be the actual drone but we might never hear the details because they would want t keep the defensive measures secret.
nfe wrote: So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.
Kilkrazy wrote: The damaged drone might not be the drone used at the airport, if there was one.
OTOH if it's true that an interception drone or other anti-drone equipment was used to attack the drone, this damaged one could be the actual drone but we might never hear the details because they would want t keep the defensive measures secret.
nfe wrote: So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.
Overread wrote: Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.
To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it
Eh the thing is if the officer had said no to that question then the media would have said "Police refuse to admit they could be wrong".
Sometimes its darn hard to speak to the media and not have them miss-represent what you've said if they want to do it. Of course there are tricks and some superstars spend years getting trained in how to speak to the media in a specific way so that what they say can't be "easily" twisted (though even then trashy newspapers and those with an agenda can still do it). This is especially true in the internet age where there's a huge desire for those click-bait type titles all over the place (personally I think we are reaching a near saturation point where they will eventually stop working and filp over to something else)
Indeed. If anyone has ever wondered why politicians or other officials talk in such a mealy-mouthed, rehearsed manner and wondered why they can't just talk straight and give us the facts.....that's why.
Yup. And then the media dare to wonder why people don't trust them anymore. There is just way too many media outlets engaging in sensational gutter journalism. Maybe they should have taken more care to preserve journalistic integrity instead of dragging themselves through the gutter in the name of profits. And that, by association, also damages the media outlets that do try to keep up their ethics and standards.
I hope that the couple wrongly arrested sue the arses of the press and get a heavyweight legal representative to take on the police.
My take. There was a drone sighting, but authorities escalated the situation on the back of poor procedure and couldn't or wouldn't admit an error. Two people were wrongly arrested because of this failure.
This is systemic and not an isolated case regarding our police service. And its not down to lack of funding.
Without a lot more detail its impossible to know if the police were at fault or not. In many crimes the investigative process might well arrest people who have only a fringe connection or who are found innocent. Police shouldn't be punished for doing this line of work unless its found to be because of actual serious mistakes and errors or even bias taking place.
The police might well have had more than enough good reason to detain them pending further investigation.
The media outlets that named and shamed the couple are the ones at far greater fault. They outright named and shamed to the whole world a couple who police found - quite quickly after arrest - were innocent of any connection to the crime in question.
So media outlets that named and shamed first totally yes go sue them for every penny legally owed for such.
Police might warrant investigation into procedure, but might well not be guilty of anything. It's really impossible for anyone on the outside to call judgement there.
The police can't be blamed for taking suspects into custody for questioning and releasing them when it is found that there is no substantive evidence against them.
The Mail on Sunday OTOH can be blamed for naming and shaming a couple who actually are innocent.
They held them for 36 hours so this is beyond the normal 24 hours that they get without asking for anything special,
so there are potential questions about why they got the extra 12 hours (or perhaps more as they can ask for up to 96), was it down to there being a potential solid case (fair enough) or just that this was a 'serious' offense (more debatable) as that's meant to be for murder and terrorism type things not just closing an airport (without actively endangering planes)
but its certainly the case that the media have a case to answer
I would wager that flying drones, even without the intent to cause direct harm, could still be taken as a potential act to endanger the planes. That said I'd say there's a line between that and between actual terrorism and thus far nothing in this situation has made me think terrorist. Protest yes, but not terrorist.
In my mind slipping into terrorist activity would have come with more direct attempts to endanger lives and the planes.
Drones are kinda still a newish thing and it takes the law a while to catch up, along with police and other agencies.
Interestingly enough when that David Blaine magician did his stunt of not eating in a clear plastic cage over I think it was the Thames river some "arsehole" as I believe you british say just had to be as big an ass hole (american term) as he possibly could be by having a RC helicopter dangle a hamburger just outside his cell.
I don'ct recall anyone seeing its anything but a wankprank. But call them drones instead of RC planes or copters and it changes, , doesn't it?
Techpriestsupport wrote: Drones are kinda still a newish thing and it takes the law a while to catch up, along with police and other agencies.
Interestingly enough when that David Blaine magician did his stunt of not eating in a clear plastic cage over I think it was the Thames river some "arsehole" as I believe you british say just had to be as big an ass hole (american term) as he possibly could be by having a RC helicopter dangle a hamburger just outside his cell.
I don'ct recall anyone seeing its anything but a wankprank. But call them drones instead of RC planes or copters and it changes, , doesn't it?
The problem is that drones are much easier to fly than RC helicopters because they have software to make them automatically stable and allow following a course automatically.
If someone wants to attack an airport with drones, they don't even need to be there to watch the drone and pilot it. They just need to program the drones with a course that takes them down the runway at irregular intervals, then return to base for new batteries.
Techpriestsupport wrote: Drones are kinda still a newish thing and it takes the law a while to catch up, along with police and other agencies.
Interestingly enough when that David Blaine magician did his stunt of not eating in a clear plastic cage over I think it was the Thames river some "arsehole" as I believe you british say just had to be as big an ass hole (american term) as he possibly could be by having a RC helicopter dangle a hamburger just outside his cell.
I don'ct recall anyone seeing its anything but a wankprank. But call them drones instead of RC planes or copters and it changes, , doesn't it?
The problem is that drones are much easier to fly than RC helicopters because they have software to make them automatically stable and allow following a course automatically.
If someone wants to attack an airport with drones, they don't even need to be there to watch the drone and pilot it. They just need to program the drones with a course that takes them down the runway at irregular intervals, then return to base for new batteries.
Ah, you made a useful, intelligent and informative reply here, thank you!
I never got that old RC aircraft were harder to fly than drones, I've never used one so never looked into the bit about the drone having flight assistance. Yes that does put a spin on things. The easier it gets to operate something thye more people will use and misuse it.
Old RC aircraft were hard to fly because you had no autopilot feature, you had to watch the plane (keeping LOS on it at all times) and manually move the controls in response to whatever it was doing. Want to turn? Nudge the stick left and hope you don't over-bank and lose control, and judge by eye when you've made enough of a turn. It takes some crashes to get it, and before the era of cheap foam models with cheap electric motors you had to spend a lot of hours building/repairing a model each time. Modern model aircraft (not just multi-rotor drones) can have an autopilot capable of flying autonomously between GPS waypoints in addition to direct manual control. Any idiot who gets a modern toy can go straight to flying it and causing trouble without ever having to learn anything besides how to hack the software to remove the geofencing and then add a GPS waypoint in the approach path to the airport.
Also, can we get rid of the idea that "drone" means "cheap multi-rotor toy"? It's a generic term for any remotely-piloted or autonomous aircraft, and all of the autopilot stuff on your average multi-rotor toy can be added to a plane just as easily.
(Which, BTW, kind of shuts down any idea of drones as some kind of sophisticated act of terrorism. The threat isn't from someone buying a drone off ebay and putting a small bomb on it, it's from terrorists building DIY cruise missiles loaded with hundreds of pounds of explosives.)
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: They held them for 36 hours so this is beyond the normal 24 hours that they get without asking for anything special,
so there are potential questions about why they got the extra 12 hours (or perhaps more as they can ask for up to 96), was it down to there being a potential solid case (fair enough) or just that this was a 'serious' offense (more debatable) as that's meant to be for murder and terrorism type things not just closing an airport (without actively endangering planes)
but its certainly the case that the media have a case to answer
Held for 36 hours, when there was only a suspicion, based on owning drones in the past. An alibi was available within hours for the couple. There was never a solid case.
The police got themselves in a position where they had to make an arrest and chose someone who may be guilty...of something.
I'd have to do some more research but various terrorism acts were not in play for this arrest. It would lead to an almighty paper trail exposing greater incompetence. If they did then someone is for the sack.
Anyway.
Vague threats of drones operating within a large area are enough to close an airport down for days. Terrorists take note. This is one way to send a country into melt down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The police can't be blamed for taking suspects into custody for questioning and releasing them when it is found that there is no substantive evidence against them.
They can and they should.
It isn't a rare occurrence.
Evidence of their innocence was available within hours. Something the police were reluctant to provide so they could pursue their case in the hope they could find something.
Well we don’t really know the details of the arrest and investigation, or what led them down that route for so long.
“Unlawful imprisonment” is going to be quite a stretch given the police can legitimately hold you you for about a day or so without charge as part of an ongoing investigation. Most of the anger by the couple involved seems directed at the newspapers for their coverage not the police, and that’s where the legal action will likely head.
Sussex Police's chief constable has said he feels "really sorry" for the couple who were held for 36 hours over the Gatwick Airport drones chaos.
Paul Gait and Elaine Kirk, who were released without charge, said they felt "violated" after their home was searched and their identities exposed.
Giles York told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was "convinced the grounds for arrest were well-founded".
Two drones found near the airport have been ruled out of being involved.
Mr York defended the decision to hold Mr Gait for an extended period, despite his employer saying he was at work during the drone flights.
He added: "I'm really sorry for what [Mr Gait] has experienced and the feeling of violation around it.
"[But] what might have been worse as an experience for him would have been to be released under investigation still.
"We were able to exhaust all our lines of inquiry on that first instance and were able to release him from police custody saying he was no longer a suspect."
About 1,000 flights were affected during the chaos between 19 and 21 December when drones were sighted near the runway.
A suggestion by a senior Sussex police officer that there may have been no drones was later dismissed as a miscommunication.
Mr York said police received 115 reports of sightings, including 92 confirmed as coming from "credible people".
However, he admitted that police drones launched to investigate could have caused "some level of confusion".
Mr York revealed that two drones found by police near the airport have now been ruled out of responsibility for the disruption which saw flights cancelled or diverted.
Despite searches of 26 potential sites, he said: "I don't think we have found the drone responsible."
But he said he was "absolutely certain that there was a drone flying throughout the period that the airport was closed".
Highlighted in bold some important quotes.
If you have ever been on the wrong side of an investigation by the police you'll probably find the comments laughable and all too common.
Ill still stand by my assertion that the authorities escalated this incident via means of incompetence and internal pressures. The arrest came via a very Terry Pratchett means of policing i.e. someone has to be guilty of something.
(Which, BTW, kind of shuts down any idea of drones as some kind of sophisticated act of terrorism. The threat isn't from someone buying a drone off ebay and putting a small bomb on it, it's from terrorists building DIY cruise missiles loaded with hundreds of pounds of explosives.)
You reckon? I would have thought a terrorist group capable of building something as sophisticated as a missile would not have been overly hampered by the guidance system for it. Even unguided if they could build missiles capable of carrying hundreds of pounds of explosives and had the desire to use them they could do massive amounts of damage over a major city.
CCTV police officer 'chased himself' after being mistaken for burglar
An undercover police officer "chased himself round the streets" for 20 minutes after a CCTV operator mistook him for suspect.
The junior officer, who has not been named, was monitoring an area hit by a series of burglaries in an unnamed market town in the country’s south.
As the probationary officer from Sussex Police searched for suspects, the camera operator radioed that he had seen someone “acting suspiciously” in the area.
But he failed to realise that it was actually the plain-clothed officer he was watching on the screen, according to details leaked to an industry magazine.
The operator directed the officer, who was on foot patrol, as he followed the "suspect" on camera last month, telling his colleague on the ground that he was "hot on his heels".
The officer spent around 20 minutes giving chase before a sergeant came into the CCTV control room, recognised the “suspect” and laughed hysterically at the mistake.
I expect a lot of people will get sued by that couple, including the police. I mean, they (someone with the police) released the names of the couple before they had anything to go on, after all.
Why settle for just the newspapers when you can get some of that Government money too?
Seems often the case authorities/officials find it difficult to justify spending money on precautionary measures against hypothetical problems and no one wants to stick their neck out. Once a problem does occur then they can put things in place without having to make much of a case or worry they’ll be accused of wasting money.
If you were even more cynical, you may think that officials only get kudos for ‘doing something’ and sorting out a high profile problem, they don’t get a pack on the back for putting measures in place to stop something happening in the first place because there’s no publicity in it. So they don’t bother fighting that battle because if they’re right problems are prevented from ever appearing and they don’t get any kudos.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems often the case authorities/officials find it difficult to justify spending money on precautionary measures against hypothetical problems and no one wants to stick their neck out. Once a problem does occur then they can put things in place without having to make much of a case or worry they’ll be accused of wasting money.
Tbh airport Zürich has other problems, mostly with the germans.
(Which, BTW, kind of shuts down any idea of drones as some kind of sophisticated act of terrorism. The threat isn't from someone buying a drone off ebay and putting a small bomb on it, it's from terrorists building DIY cruise missiles loaded with hundreds of pounds of explosives.)
You reckon? I would have thought a terrorist group capable of building something as sophisticated as a missile would not have been overly hampered by the guidance system for it. Even unguided if they could build missiles capable of carrying hundreds of pounds of explosives and had the desire to use them they could do massive amounts of damage over a major city.
Think even easier. I don't want to go too much into details (I know far too much about what exactly would be involved, and could probably build it) but you don't even need sophisticated missiles. It would be fairly easy to turn a $50,000 small plane into a DIY cruise missile capable of carrying 500+ pounds of explosives. No suicidal martyrs required, just convert a swarm of missiles and send them off to kill people. TBH the bomb itself is the hardest part, getting enough explosives to build one without your DIY chemistry lab turning into a smoking crater. The fact that we aren't seeing this kind of attack is pretty strong evidence that the people we're dealing with are a bunch of idiots with a desire for martyrdom and not much else. As is the fact that we're even talking about the "threat" of putting an improvised bomb on an ebay drone and hoping to maybe kill a person or two through sheer blind luck.
The IRA carried out many large bombings, either Islamic radicals just don’t have the competency or we really have become better at preventing and detecting the acquisition of explosive materials.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The IRA carried out many large bombings, either Islamic radicals just don’t have the competency or we really have become better at preventing and detecting the acquisition of explosive materials.
Guns are easier to get and smuggle and a mass shooting can get a body count as good as a back back bomb. The cold math and economics of terrorism dictates a few assault weapons, a couple clips each and a few nuts willing to die are cheaper and easier to set up than a few dozen kilos of explosives that will get about as high a body count.
Horrible yet logical.
Also, IRA terrorists wefe less willing to commit suicidal attacks than Muslim terrorists as facts clearly prove, making suicide attack mass shootings unfeasible for the IRA but quite available to Muslim terrorists. .
Yet other than car and knife attacks, we have had several suicide bombers (7/7, Manchester and several high profile prevented) and no terror mass shooters in the UK because it’s just not that easy to get ‘a few assault weapons’ in the UK, I don’t think you understand the difference in cultures.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems often the case authorities/officials find it difficult to justify spending money on precautionary measures against hypothetical problems and no one wants to stick their neck out. Once a problem does occur then they can put things in place without having to make much of a case or worry they’ll be accused of wasting money.
Tbh airport Zürich has other problems, mostly with the germans.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems often the case authorities/officials find it difficult to justify spending money on precautionary measures against hypothetical problems and no one wants to stick their neck out. Once a problem does occur then they can put things in place without having to make much of a case or worry they’ll be accused of wasting money.
Tbh airport Zürich has other problems, mostly with the germans.
Can you elaborate please?
Issues with noise, they don't want us to expand it. Tbh how they (EU/germany and other neighbours treat us atm) we should just expand it anyways at this point.
I was actually affected by this and forced to land in freaking Shannon Ireland (basically in the middle of no where). I salvaged my trip by driving to Dublin in a rental car then getting a super cheap flight to east midlands airport a few days later.
So despite the best efforts of the 12 year old flying a drone and shutting down the 2nd largest airport in all of Europe for over a day....I made it to Nottingham and got to see Warhammer World - which was REALLY awesome.
More on point...This is a huge joke and all the authorities should be embarrassed. The "What would happen if we missed the drone? and the bullets fell on somebody" OMG...9mm round falling from the sky at 500 M or more hits with the force of a large piece of hail...Meanwhile millions of dollars are being lost by all the parties involved - not to mention the ruining of hundreds of peoples vacations. I can't say this for sure but my gut instinct is that if this happened in the US...Authorities would be thrilled to shoot a drone out of the sky and wouldn't even hesitate given the chance. A chance open fire on an actual aircraft? You'd even have civilians participating...
War Drone wrote: 1st Para, I felt a "twinge" of sympathy (I've had FAR worse)
2nd Para, I really thought "Yay for Xeno! Happy!"
3rd Para, it kind of felt like you got your junk out and smeared it all over the inside of my forearms without me knowing ...
I am unsure which orkmote to choose ...
It wasn't that bad because I had a lot of fun in Dublin. Still a huge pain.
Saw some pictures in the paper with English soldiers would shoulder mounted rocket launchers patrolling an airport...Like seriously - you don't need that kind of firepower LOL. Had some laughs at a pub with some nice guys from England showing a video of a drone being destroyed flying over a football match via a roll of toliet paper. Sorry for disgusting you in such a way but do you really think it's reasonable that a 1500 dollar remote controlled aircraft should be shutting down large international airports?
Yeah, I don't see why it couldn't be shot down with bird shot. Millions of rounds a year are shot off into the sky for clay pigeon, and for shooting, and no-one gets hurt except the occasional beater.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yeah, I don't see why it couldn't be shot down with bird shot. Millions of rounds a year are shot off into the sky for clay pigeon, and for shooting, and no-one gets hurt except the occasional beater.
Range, probably. I don't know about this specific case, but you can put a drone in the approach/departure paths while still being too high for bird shot.
Honestly I think it;s only a matter of time before a civilian drone is used in a more serious incident.
I mean even without thinking hard at all you can see what could be done with them. Dropping a small incendiary charge on a building roof or releasing a mysterious powder into the intakes of a buildings ventilation system are just two possibilities it takes zero time and effort to see happening. And before some idiot says I'm encouraging terrorism, don't be stupid. Anyone with any negative inclination and the intelligence to operate a drone would think of those in a minute.You can bet a lot of people already have.
I'm sure we'll see drone regulations, penalties, prison sentences, coming soon. Meanwhile the state, of course, will give itself carte' blanche to do whatever it wants with drones while criminalizing defending yourself from them.
And remember we've already had one case in America where an american citizen on american soil was killed by a drone in the use of law enforcement.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yeah, I don't see why it couldn't be shot down with bird shot. Millions of rounds a year are shot off into the sky for clay pigeon, and for shooting, and no-one gets hurt except the occasional beater.
Because where people shoot those there is clear space for the pellets to fall. This airport, and indeed most airports, are in dense cities.
Yeah, in order to shoot down a drone in maximum possible safety you'ce need to have an apevacuation and advisory to nearby people to stay inside at time X. In such a case the drone operator would likely evacuate his drone too.
Also airports are very large open spaces, don’t the drones have cameras? If people get close, they’ll just move away. The guns people are suggesting don’t have the range to be effective. If it was that easy to locate and shoot them down I’m sure they would have.
Anyway, it’s gone very quiet now so I wonder if their investigation is going anywhere or if they are waiting long enough for the media to move onto something else before they admit they spent most of the day the airport was shut chasing their own tail.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Also airports are very large open spaces, don’t the drones have cameras? If people get close, they’ll just move away. The guns people are suggesting don’t have the range to be effective. If it was that easy to locate and shoot them down I’m sure they would have.
Shotguns definitely have the range. Now the operator might see the cops sneaking up with a shotgun, they may not. And it would doubtlessly be effective. The reason it hasn't been done is because it would be an unacceptable risk to safety to fire shotguns in an upward direction in an urban environment.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Also airports are very large open spaces, don’t the drones have cameras? If people get close, they’ll just move away. The guns people are suggesting don’t have the range to be effective. If it was that easy to locate and shoot them down I’m sure they would have.
Shotguns definitely have the range. Now the operator might see the cops sneaking up with a shotgun, they may not. And it would doubtlessly be effective. The reason it hasn't been done is because it would be an unacceptable risk to safety to fire shotguns in an upward direction in an urban environment.
What sort of range does birdshot have? My understanding was typically less than 40 yards, even if it were 100 yards that’s probably not far enough, a drone could just fly at a 100m altitude, and even if it were lower an airport is a big place, a 747 is around 80 yards long, so you’d be chasing it around trying to get within a decent range all the while paying attention to what’s behind the drone and whether it’s safe to actually take the shot.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yeah, I don't see why it couldn't be shot down with bird shot. Millions of rounds a year are shot off into the sky for clay pigeon, and for shooting, and no-one gets hurt except the occasional beater.
Because where people shoot those there is clear space for the pellets to fall. This airport, and indeed most airports, are in dense cities.
The range of bird shot is under 500 yards. Gatwick Airport is about 4 Km long and between 3 and 1.5 Km wide. Also, it is mostly surrounded by countryside.
Of course there are buildings and planes inside the perimeter, but a great deal of it is open ground.
War Drone wrote: 1st Para, I felt a "twinge" of sympathy (I've had FAR worse)
2nd Para, I really thought "Yay for Xeno! Happy!"
3rd Para, it kind of felt like you got your junk out and smeared it all over the inside of my forearms without me knowing ...
I am unsure which orkmote to choose ...
It wasn't that bad because I had a lot of fun in Dublin. Still a huge pain.
Saw some pictures in the paper with English soldiers would shoulder mounted rocket launchers patrolling an airport...Like seriously - you don't need that kind of firepower LOL. Had some laughs at a pub with some nice guys from England showing a video of a drone being destroyed flying over a football match via a roll of toliet paper
. Sorry for disgusting you in such a way but do you really think it's reasonable that a 1500 dollar remote controlled aircraft should be shutting down large international airports?
War Drone wrote: 1st Para, I felt a "twinge" of sympathy (I've had FAR worse)
2nd Para, I really thought "Yay for Xeno! Happy!"
3rd Para, it kind of felt like you got your junk out and smeared it all over the inside of my forearms without me knowing ...
I am unsure which orkmote to choose ...
It wasn't that bad because I had a lot of fun in Dublin. Still a huge pain.
Saw some pictures in the paper with English soldiers would shoulder mounted rocket launchers patrolling an airport...Like seriously - you don't need that kind of firepower LOL. Had some laughs at a pub with some nice guys from England showing a video of a drone being destroyed flying over a football match via a roll of toliet paper
. Sorry for disgusting you in such a way but do you really think it's reasonable that a 1500 dollar remote controlled aircraft should be shutting down large international airports?
Kilkrazy wrote: Yeah, I don't see why it couldn't be shot down with bird shot. Millions of rounds a year are shot off into the sky for clay pigeon, and for shooting, and no-one gets hurt except the occasional beater.
You'd have to clear up all of the shot that went near a runway, and perform a safety inspection on any aircraft that might have got hit. You'd spend hours dealing with the fall-out.
Shells filled with rock salt. Its sort of a myth as far as home defense effectiveness (and legality) goes, but it would be perfect in an application such as this. No cleanup, no chance of anyone getting hurt, but still enough of a punch to mess with the propellers on the drone.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Shells filled with rock salt. Its sort of a myth as far as home defense effectiveness (and legality) goes, but it would be perfect in an application such as this. No cleanup, no chance of anyone getting hurt, but still enough of a punch to mess with the propellers on the drone.
i don’t see how salt shot could possibly have the required range to take down a drone.
It seems to me any conventional firearm with a usable range to shoot down a drone is also going to have an issue with being inadvertently dangerous at a much longer range.
It has about the same range as birdshot (give or take 5 meters), but much less force when it gets there. Most likely enough to break or destabilize a prop, but it it isn't you really aren't risking anything other than some paperwork.
One of the best methods to prevent drone overflights from closing a major international airport is to be sure that the overflights are actually happening.
Techpriestsupport wrote: Is there a radar system that can track drones or are they too low and close for radar to pickup effectively?
You could mount some RADAR lower to look for them, but it would be very difficult to distinguish a Drone from a bird or any number of other objects. Plus you would have interference from any structures in the area.
It would be far more cost effective and easier to simply give roving security teams a net gun while they patrol the runways.
These things have to generate heat while working so maybe an IR system could be set to loom for small, slow, airborne heat sources, but then I suppose that millions of dollars, pounds, francs, etc will have sot beslent on dealing with drones because of a few dickeads....
I will defend the british police and government here tho. They may have overreacted a tad, but one good sized drone going into a jetliner's engine during takeoff could result in hundreds dead and tens of millions or more in property damage, so, even if they, in retrospect, did over react a tad I will forgive them, admittedly from afar, especially given the series of terrorist attacks england has been subjected to
So, is this story going to just fade away with no real resolution and be forgotten the next time some prominent figure gets accused of looking at someone in a manner they were uncomfortable with?
Techpriestsupport wrote: So, is this story going to just fade away with no real resolution and be forgotten the next time some prominent figure gets accused of looking at someone in a manner they were uncomfortable with?
Well yes, that's how our modern media works.
News outlets will give us minute by minute updates whilst so something is hot and fresh and often negative. Once its into the resolution phase or even resolved the stories vanish fast to be replaced with the next disasters/trouble/war/evil in the world.
That said there's also likely very little to actually say other than "investigations are ongoing" esp as the news is already going to get its arm bitten by the family who are very likely to sue the newspapers who leaked their name and home to the world. At this stage there likely isn't much of anything to really say. The next update might be a new policy for the airport; new equipment; new training measures - the news might report if someone gets caught or if new legislation is going to be put into effect, but that would be all I'd expect.
Gatwick and Heathrow Airports have announced they are going to purchase military-grade anti-drone technology, according to the BBC yesterday (4th Jan.)
I don't think new legislation is needed. The law already provides for five year's imprisonment for flying a drone into unauthorised airspace, and life for interfering with air safety and endangering life.
There is now a new licensing code for professional level drone equipment and operator training. It would be sensible to adopt this into law, however it is being adopted anyway by responsible professional drone companies. It's unrealistic to think about mandatory training and licensing for private individuals buying £100 drones from Curry's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm trying to imagine what the idea anti-drone technology should look like in operation.
At the moment I envision a vicious bright laser beam, which lashes out and explodes the drone into a ball of smoking fragments.
I've actually thought quite a bit about how hard it would be to make a small surface to air missile with off the shelf components. I'm talking the size of a big model rocket, 4 or 5 feet long tops.
You could have a cartridge-style engine component, a lightweight raspberry-pi style electronics package that guides towards the radio signals commonly used by drones, and instead of just a parachute after explosive charge, it's a few ounces of birdshot, or even hard plastic pellets (the props on most consumer drones are pretty fragile so you don't need a shotgun-powered blast to take one down, the speed of the props will do the work for you).
The tube and electronics package could be reloaded and reused to keep costs down. You'd really only need to reload the engine, explosive charge, and pellets.
I honestly don’t see that working for lots of reasons. Even if it did know to fly towards a radio signal, how would it know when to detonate or burst? It might just be better to build a drone that has a bit more protection on it and ram the other drone.
I used to make model rockets and the motors typically used in those only give a second or so burst (which is longer than it sounds, small ones go quite high and then blow away on the wind if you’ve a decent parachute, so you lose your model).
But a big rocket really wouldn’t go very far at all, not in terms of an airport. Also any added weight, like explosives or some form of shrapnel, which really hits any distance they can achieve. And they tend to go in a straight line very rapidly, meaning a bigger motor just makes it go further/faster in a straight line, but either way it wouldn't have a lot of time to manoeuvre in the right direction, the window of time between it taking off and being near it’s target is going to be tiny, it’s just not going to steer anywhere effectively. Most rockets only steer to correct their course a little they aren’t good over short distances. Their flight is strongly determined by a gust of wind too, and once the rocket burst is gone they fall pretty much plummet and as they don’t glide so you can’t pilot them towards a drone on their decent either.
Sorry Ouze, I think it would be incredibly difficult to build an effective ground-air missile from off the shelf components, I imagine it could be done worth a big budget but there just has to be more cost effective ways.
Ouze wrote: I've actually thought quite a bit about how hard it would be to make a small surface to air missile with off the shelf components. I'm talking the size of a big model rocket, 4 or 5 feet long tops.
You could have a cartridge-style engine component, a lightweight raspberry-pi style electronics package that guides towards the radio signals commonly used by drones, and instead of just a parachute after explosive charge, it's a few ounces of birdshot, or even hard plastic pellets (the props on most consumer drones are pretty fragile so you don't need a shotgun-powered blast to take one down, the speed of the props will do the work for you).
The tube and electronics package could be reloaded and reused to keep costs down. You'd really only need to reload the engine, explosive charge, and pellets.
OK, and what are its arming parameters? How will it detect the drone? I've rigged PIR systems into IEDs (Training of course) and while not difficult to do, the systems themselves are large, unwieldy and have no way of specifying a target.. They are effectively indiscriminate. There's a reason missiles like that are made by aerospace companies, and not been recreated by terrorists.
Ouze wrote: I've actually thought quite a bit about how hard it would be to make a small surface to air missile with off the shelf components. I'm talking the size of a big model rocket, 4 or 5 feet long tops.
You could have a cartridge-style engine component, a lightweight raspberry-pi style electronics package that guides towards the radio signals commonly used by drones, and instead of just a parachute after explosive charge, it's a few ounces of birdshot, or even hard plastic pellets (the props on most consumer drones are pretty fragile so you don't need a shotgun-powered blast to take one down, the speed of the props will do the work for you).
The tube and electronics package could be reloaded and reused to keep costs down. You'd really only need to reload the engine, explosive charge, and pellets.
You see that dark car parked across the street from where you live? ...
Ouze wrote: I've actually thought quite a bit about how hard it would be to make a small surface to air missile with off the shelf components. I'm talking the size of a big model rocket, 4 or 5 feet long tops.
You could have a cartridge-style engine component, a lightweight raspberry-pi style electronics package that guides towards the radio signals commonly used by drones, and instead of just a parachute after explosive charge, it's a few ounces of birdshot, or even hard plastic pellets (the props on most consumer drones are pretty fragile so you don't need a shotgun-powered blast to take one down, the speed of the props will do the work for you).
The tube and electronics package could be reloaded and reused to keep costs down. You'd really only need to reload the engine, explosive charge, and pellets.
Would you even need a payload? Just the impact of the rocket itself could do a lot of damage to a drone.
The real question is if you could get relatively precision steering in a model rocket sized package.
Guys, I don't think some people understand what "model rockets" mean today. We're not just talking about cardboard tubes with packed black powder rockets.
Have a look at this video and see what a couple thousand dollars and some expertise can do today...
Howard A Treesong wrote: I honestly don’t see that working for lots of reasons. Even if it did know to fly towards a radio signal, how would it know when to detonate or burst? It might just be better to build a drone that has a bit more protection on it and ram the other drone.
I used to make model rockets and the motors typically used in those only give a second or so burst (which is longer than it sounds, small ones go quite high and then blow away on the wind if you’ve a decent parachute, so you lose your model).
But a big rocket really wouldn’t go very far at all, not in terms of an airport. Also any added weight, like explosives or some form of shrapnel, which really hits any distance they can achieve. And they tend to go in a straight line very rapidly, meaning a bigger motor just makes it go further/faster in a straight line, but either way it wouldn't have a lot of time to manoeuvre in the right direction, the window of time between it taking off and being near it’s target is going to be tiny, it’s just not going to steer anywhere effectively. Most rockets only steer to correct their course a little they aren’t good over short distances. Their flight is strongly determined by a gust of wind too, and once the rocket burst is gone they fall pretty much plummet and as they don’t glide so you can’t pilot them towards a drone on their decent either.
Sorry Ouze, I think it would be incredibly difficult to build an effective ground-air missile from off the shelf components, I imagine it could be done worth a big budget but there just has to be more cost effective ways.
Yeah, probably. As someone else said if it were possible someone would have done it already. This isn't something I know that much about.
A drone that just flies into the other drone would probably work better.
Guys, I don't think some people understand what "model rockets" mean today. We're not just talking about cardboard tubes with packed black powder rockets.
Have a look at this video and see what a couple thousand dollars and some expertise can do today...
And what good is spending thousands on launching a six foot rocket to nearly 100,000 feet when you’re trying to take out a relatively tiny low level drone? It’s the wrong technology, it’s not going to work for this purpose, making it bigger with more fuel isn’t better.
Think simple, ram with another drone, have a guy throw a boomerang at it. They’re fairly fragile things, you don’t need to shoot it with a stinger.
Restricted sales, Licencing. Some form of geo loacted go home signal as standard, on site jamming/spoofing.
Probably more effective and less news worthy - and thus panic making - than having a stood up 24/7 rocket battalion on a civil airport just waiting for the needle in a haystack to be spotted so they can be turned loose.
(After appropriate assessment of meteorological conditions).
I imagine rocket stages coming back down to earth to be more of a hazard than a flying drone.
Guys, I don't think some people understand what "model rockets" mean today. We're not just talking about cardboard tubes with packed black powder rockets.
Have a look at this video and see what a couple thousand dollars and some expertise can do today...
And what good is spending thousands on launching a six foot rocket to nearly 100,000 feet when you’re trying to take out a relatively tiny low level drone? It’s the wrong technology, it’s not going to work for this purpose, making it bigger with more fuel isn’t better.
Think simple, ram with another drone, have a guy throw a boomerang at it. They’re fairly fragile things, you don’t need to shoot it with a stinger.
I wasn't thinking of using a model rocket to take out a drone. People are concerned what a drone could do to a plane near an airport. Let's not forget some of these model rockets have the rnfe and speed to go after a plane anywhere. That's the point I was making. A drone could be a danger to a plane near an airport, a real bad guy can go after a plane anywhere. If we're really concerned about airplanes being targets drones are only part of the problem.
The difference with a drone is that any idiot can buy one off the shelf and because they practically fly themselves, the idiot doesn't need to put in much effort and time to get good enough to use the drone for some kind of interference manoeuvre at an airport.
Kilkrazy wrote: The difference with a drone is that any idiot can buy one off the shelf and because they practically fly themselves, the idiot doesn't need to put in much effort and time to get good enough to use the drone for some kind of interference manoeuvre at an airport.
True, dat. I guess the real security nightmare is when any idiot having a bad day can get hold of devices that make him a danger. I mean, a terrorist group can be hunted for, tracked and whacked.
The proverbial "lone nut" can come out of nowhere.
You know, not to trivialize real issues but stuff like this makes you see why in 40k the imperium stictly controls technology..
Kilkrazy wrote: The difference with a drone is that any idiot can buy one off the shelf and because they practically fly themselves, the idiot doesn't need to put in much effort and time to get good enough to use the drone for some kind of interference manoeuvre at an airport.
True, dat. I guess the real security nightmare is when any idiot having a bad day can get hold of devices that make him a danger. I mean, a terrorist group can be hunted for, tracked and whacked.
The proverbial "lone nut" can come out of nowhere.
You know, not to trivialize real issues but stuff like this makes you see why in 40k the imperium stictly controls technology..
I cant think if any situation where a 'lone nut' would decide that a satisfactory objective is to fly a drone into commercial airspace for the purposes of preventing take off and landing. Or with thought of causing fatalities.
Someone had their luggage lost by an airline and believes they stole it. Someone believes airplanes are bringing in too many dang furriners, someone got bumped from a flight that was important to him, someone feels the government is persecuting him by keeping him from flying, someone got laid off from an airline...
War Drone wrote: 1st Para, I felt a "twinge" of sympathy (I've had FAR worse)
2nd Para, I really thought "Yay for Xeno! Happy!"
3rd Para, it kind of felt like you got your junk out and smeared it all over the inside of my forearms without me knowing ...
I am unsure which orkmote to choose ...
It wasn't that bad because I had a lot of fun in Dublin. Still a huge pain.
Saw some pictures in the paper with English soldiers would shoulder mounted rocket launchers patrolling an airport...Like seriously - you don't need that kind of firepower LOL. Had some laughs at a pub with some nice guys from England showing a video of a drone being destroyed flying over a football match via a roll of toliet paper
. Sorry for disgusting you in such a way but do you really think it's reasonable that a 1500 dollar remote controlled aircraft should be shutting down large international airports?
War Drone wrote: 1st Para, I felt a "twinge" of sympathy (I've had FAR worse)
2nd Para, I really thought "Yay for Xeno! Happy!"
3rd Para, it kind of felt like you got your junk out and smeared it all over the inside of my forearms without me knowing ...
I am unsure which orkmote to choose ...
It wasn't that bad because I had a lot of fun in Dublin. Still a huge pain.
Saw some pictures in the paper with English soldiers would shoulder mounted rocket launchers patrolling an airport...Like seriously - you don't need that kind of firepower LOL. Had some laughs at a pub with some nice guys from England showing a video of a drone being destroyed flying over a football match via a roll of toliet paper
. Sorry for disgusting you in such a way but do you really think it's reasonable that a 1500 dollar remote controlled aircraft should be shutting down large international airports?
Who said I felt disgusted?
Got the sense from your post - my mistake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Gatwick and Heathrow Airports have announced they are going to purchase military-grade anti-drone technology, according to the BBC yesterday (4th Jan.)
I don't think new legislation is needed. The law already provides for five year's imprisonment for flying a drone into unauthorised airspace, and life for interfering with air safety and endangering life.
There is now a new licensing code for professional level drone equipment and operator training. It would be sensible to adopt this into law, however it is being adopted anyway by responsible professional drone companies. It's unrealistic to think about mandatory training and licensing for private individuals buying £100 drones from Curry's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm trying to imagine what the idea anti-drone technology should look like in operation.
At the moment I envision a vicious bright laser beam, which lashes out and explodes the drone into a ball of smoking fragments.
Anyone got any other dramatic ideas?
That would certainly do the trick but I think it's going overboard just a bit. A few military grade drones with the right weaponry would be more than sufficient. Perhaps a net designed to snare drones or some kind of rapid fire rubber bullet launcher would probably get the job done a lot cheaper. Maybe a Gatling bb launcher. Drones are very fragile.
Do airports shut down if flocks of geese have been sighted in the area? They are equally if not more dangerous than a drone.
Yes they most likely do shut down. However geese are typically going to be passing through so the shut down period is much shorter. The news is also less likely to report on it because its just regular life and the disruption is typically short. Furthermore airports make extensive use of a wide variety of bird deterrent measures such as flying their own falcons to scare away birds; playing alarm calls; loud random sounds and other elements - often varying them as any disruption that remains constant will eventually be ignored if it poses no actual threat.
A drone on the other hand is a deliberate act and if its operators intention is disruption then its likely to hang around for a long while. Furthermore it won't get "scared off" by the airport falconer or by a bird scarer. Plus the drone can act in an intentionally dangerous manner whilst a bird is accidental (a bird has no intention to get sucked into the engines at all; it does not want to be there it ends up there by accidental collision. A disruptive drone is totally different and the operator could aim for the engines).
Plus airports have always had to contend with birds and so they've got experience and measures in place. They likely know general behaviour patterns so they might see geese flying over and know that they have to shut Runway 1 for a while, but can keep the others open etc... Or just wait 10 mins and the birds will be long gone over the horizon etc.... A drone is new, they don't know what to do with it; don't have practised and proven measures against it.
Finally with a bird you don't need to catch it; with a drone you want to catch the operator if at all possible; which means more reason to keep the drone in the air so that here's a chance of tracking the operator.
large airports need to toughen up IMO. At the very least they should not shut down unless airport staff have witnessed the drone.
The risks are severe. No one wants to get that call wrong.
Do airports shut down if flocks of geese have been sighted in the area? They are equally if not more dangerous than a drone.
As I understand it, they postpone takeoffs and landings whilst birds are in their airspace - it's just that flocks of birds tend to pass overhead quickly and those delays are minutes at most.
Xenomancers wrote: Do airports shut down if flocks of geese have been sighted in the area? They are equally if not more dangerous than a drone.
Not true at all. Birds are a threat, but aircraft engines are designed to survive a bird strike. The same is not necessarily true of a drone with a metal frame instead of feathers and fragile bones, even ignoring the possibility that the drone is carrying a bomb. And, unlike low-altitude birds, the drone can position itself anywhere in the plane's flight path so the threat exists for more than a few seconds.
large airports need to toughen up IMO. At the very least they should not shut down unless airport staff have witnessed the drone.
The risks are severe. No one wants to get that call wrong.
Toughen up...Yeah right...Imagine amount of money they would have to pay as compensation for ignoring danger and keep going on. "We were tough ROAAAARGH!". That's going to comfort relatives of dead people.
I understand the frustration of the 150,000 passengers whose journeys were disrupted, and it's easy to point the flinger at the airport authorities for not having anticipated and prepared for a drone disruption attack.
That said, you can imagine the public reaction if flying continued, and a heavily loaded airliner got a drone in its engine and crashed in flames on top of a local hospital.
Obviously a much worse scenario for everyone!
I've read a number of SF and adventure books which have some idea about a new technology which is too potentially dangerous to allow the general public to have access to it just for fun. Perhaps we really have reached that kind of point now.
Regulating drones seems like a difficult task to me because the requisite parts to make a drone are simple and can be sold individually and assembled by a kid in his parents garage in an afternoon, and you don’t want to have to regulate all the components individually.
It’ll stop casuals flying them for fear of fines, but not sure it’d have a meaningful impact on security.
I don't think regulation would work either, except to stop the casuals.
I just mean that maybe we have gone past an inflection point and the idiots are going to ruin everything and nothing can stop it.
Or maybe Heathrow will install an Israeli military anti-drone laser system, and fry the next one that gets in. Maybe the police will find the people doing these fly-bys, and they will be prosecuted and get five years.
In general that's all you ever want to stop with these sort of measures
(just like the locks on your door won't actually keep out somebody determined to get in but will hopefully keep out the local kids, vagrants, causal thieves etc)
think at this stage the only options really are to find appropriate reactions, as prevention is really not an option as stated already. dedicated anti drone technology and personnel with the right equipment need to be deployed at each airport to tackle any marauding sky trash. Ideally you'd want some static jammers and a couple of vehicle mounted ones, with a patrol section, and a response section on notice to respond to shouts.
Just keep in mind that jammers only work against the idiots who buy a cheap drone and think it would be funny to go fly with the real planes, and those people are already dealt with by geofencing. If someone has enough technical ability to build their own drones it's trivially easy to make it fully autonomous with no control signals to jam. At best you might be able to jam its GPS reception and prevent it from holding an accurate position in the approach/departure path, if it hasn't been equipped with any inertial navigation backup, but the massive safety problems with that idea should be obvious.
Around here, the smaller airports sometimes hire Falconers to chase away birds(just like the nearby vineyards). They have a short 30 minute period of no flights, and let the falcon fly around abit. Maybe catch a couple birds. Repeat a couple weeks later.
The birds learn real quick to avoid the airport and vineyards.
*
