Gatwick Airport UK closed by drones

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

**Techpriestsupport**

I wonder if this could be a government operation to generate a groundswell of support for banning/regulating drones...

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

https://www.israelandstuff.com/watch-idfs-mounted-laser-used-to-safely-remotely-detonate-roadside-bombs

**Techpriestsupport**

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 wonder of a modern version of this could be used to down drones? Likely not very practical but an interesting slice of history.
https://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/2009/10/nazi-secret-weapons-wind-cannon.html

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

**Techpriestsupport**

filbert wrote:
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**

Dr Coconut wrote:
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.

**Techpriestsupport**

Excommunicatus wrote:
Elemental wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
Techpriestsupport wrote:
filbert wrote:
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.

**Techpriestsupport**

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**

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**

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.

**Techpriestsupport**

Ouze wrote:
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.

i wonder how good the drone pilots are...

**Techpriestsupport**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4507446.stm

**Techpriestsupport**

I see a couple people have been arrested but mostly american media is talking about some thy else now so I doubt Ivan get the story here soon.

**Techpriestsupport**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Every Chris Grayling touches turns to gak. The man is an idiot.

Want to tell us about him?

**Techpriestsupport**

So we should only have threads that do not produce emotional responses?

**Techpriestsupport**

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**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

**Techpriestsupport**

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. .

**Techpriestsupport**

Not Online!!! wrote:
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?

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

**Techpriestsupport**

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.

Is there any fresh news on this?

**Techpriestsupport**

I think hard rubber pellets could impact a drone hard enough to disrupt and crash it while minimizing risk to people as they fell.

**Techpriestsupport**

Is there a radar system that can track drones or are they too low and close for radar to pickup effectively?

**Techpriestsupport**

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....

**Techpriestsupport**

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

**Techpriestsupport**

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**

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...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rvDqoxMUroAj

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QGyRtL_kO28#