Gatwick drone incident

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Michael Ramsay-Fraser]

Liz Kershaw on Sky News. 'Ban all drones from UK skys!'

And I was told to grow up when I suggested media over reaction??

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Michael Ramsay-Fraser]

Anger got the better of me.

'Skies'

[leccyflyer]

The Transport Minister in the news this morning pointed out that these are criminal acts and that laws already exist which these activities are breaching. However he then went on to say that the laws were recent and would be added to in order to further discourage this type of activity and to employ measures to make closing down an airport like this to be impossible. Expect further legislation in the not too distant future.

[Nigel R]

Inevitably, there will be over reactions such as quoted above. Although, after some consideration, perhaps banning the sale and use of autonomous, beyond visual range kit, might help set us apart from the naughty boys who would do this sort of thing. I accept that argument has massive holes but I can't help thinking that drones are making their own bed and at this particular moment, I don't want to be in it.

re, transport sec statement, I don't know if that will translate into "extra" legislation. We already have new legislation being brought in, right? What airports don't yet have is a signed, sealed, and authorised method, for bringing down a rogue drone overflying its airspace.

It also occurs to me, if you stole a lightplane you could cause just as much chaos for exactly the same reasons and lightplanes have been around for a while now. You could, with autonomous guidance tech, have a fixed wing model overfly the airport just as easily. Many ways and means for those with nefarious intent to carry out an op like this.

[leccyflyer]

There is nothing in my post which is an over-reaction. I merely reported what the Transport Secretary said - his comment that legislation does not stop criminal acts was a sensible comment, but he did say that further legislation would be brought in.

[MattyB]

Posted by leccyflyer on 21/12/2018 08:34:26:

There is nothing in my post which is an over-reaction. I merely reported what the Transport Secretary said - his comment that legislation does not stop criminal acts was a sensible comment, but he did say that further legislation would be brought in.

I am pretty sure he was referring to the quote from Liz Kershaw on Sky News that was a few posts above yours, not the comment from the Transport Sec.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

"There is nothing in my post which is an over-reaction."

Liz Kershow, Sky News, leccyflyer, not you.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Maybe something like this would assist in tracking down any perpetrators or act as a deterrent.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Brian Cooper on 21/12/2018 01:47:00:

A lot of drones will be unwrapped on Christmas morning. None of these drones require any flying skills to operate them. Before Christmas dinner is on the table, there will be a whole new batch of morons created.

We need to stop lazily using the term “moron” here (I’d humbly suggest the mods change the thread title to something more descriptive like “Gatwick drone incident”, as the current one is neither descriptive nor aligned with the values of this forum as per the T&Cs). Those with no flight experience who unwrap a multirotor on Xmas morning are not morons by default - they are one of the very few opportunities to stem the reducing participation in our sport, and should be looked at as such. The device is not the issue here, it’s how it is used appropriately and safely that is key, and that can be achieved through a mix of education and effective enforcement (if the gov are prepared to pay for the latter).

I would also say that, whilst most of us will not agree with their motivations, the people who executed this carefully planned, skillfully orchestrated disruption to close a major airport for >24 hours are far from morons. What they have done is demonstrate that for a very small investment a huge amount of disruption can be caused to a major airport at minimal risk to themselves, and that the authorities can currently do very little to stop it. I hope that governments worldwide will realise that no amount of legislation could have stopped this attack, so practical anti-drone countermeasures will have to be deployed at major airports to prevent disruption and provide a deterrent. That will take time though, and I would be amazed if we do not see similar incidents in the short term now it’s been shown how effective a “Drone denial of service” attack can be.

Edited By MattyB on 21/12/2018 09:05:55

[Denis Watkins]

[Pete B]

That's fixed, MattyB

Pete

[OZ e flyer]

I think this issue (and I’m sure we all agree it is a global issue) may be best addressed with compulsory registration. I think it’s probably the easiest way but the problem, as has been previously stated is policing/enforcement as well as administration.

Possibly one way to assist with administration is point of sale registration. It appears that this could be done even with the internet sales given that taxes can be imposed on overseas sales. Currently almost any retailer can sell “drones” and most 10 year old kids buying or receiving these “toys” have no idea of their legal obligations and the retailers don’t care.

I know this won’t stop those intent on breaking the law, after all with a little bit of know how, a handful of spare parts and/or a 3D printer you could make your own. You will never stop those intent on breaking any law.

Of course there are always far smarter people than I who will have far smarter ideas. Maybe one is the registration of ALL transmitters? Someone with some tech smarts may also be able to come up with some way of putting an electronic “fingerprint” in all transmitters so that smart detection devices can track down “illegal” use?

As is always the case those operating responsibly and legally will have nothing to fear but we will be the ones to bear the brunt of enforcement and registration costs.

Here’s hoping we catch these clowns and somehow stop future such behaviour. I hope and pray we never have a catastrophic accident caused by these activities.

Stay safe and have a very merry Christmas.

TP

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Gary Murphy 1]

I will probably get jumped on here but here goes.

First as the "drone/quad" been identified by size? what is it a £100 "mankind" job OR mega bucks camera platform.

Secondly I would imagine the guys here will have more insight than people who have no idea of the "rc world" . so given that who here if at Gatwick last night and had the choice would get on their flight with this "drone/quad" in the air?

I would for sure. Ihave more fear of getting run down in sainsburys OR the high street by a obese person in a unrestricted mobility "chair/chair" with no insurance.

Just my opinion.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Nigel R on 21/12/2018 08:22:21:It also occurs to me, if you stole a lightplane you could cause just as much chaos for exactly the same reasons and lightplanes have been around for a while now.

Ah, but a light aircraft requires some skill to operate. Most drones don't.

There is likely to be a knee-jerk reaction from politicians over this. We can only hope that the CAA, with suitable input from the BMFA, can moderate this. The people at the CAA aren't stupid, and are as aware as we are that the problem is not legislation, but enforcement. But as I've already pointed out, enforcement costs money - however it is achieved - and politicians would rather take the cheaper route of passing more unenforceable laws.

And again, we keep coming back to the problem of distinguishing between a "drone" - which requires little or no skill to operate - and our models, which require LOS and considerable skill to operate.

If the powers-that-be had managed to come up with a suitable distinction in the first place, it would be an awful lot easier to distance ourselves from the rogue operators.

--

Pete

[PeterF]

And if you have seen the video of a small drone puncturing the leading edge skin of a commercial planes wing in the US university test, you might be a little more reluctant to be on a plane with drones in the same airspace.

[Peter Miller]

Since some people object to the term "morons and even have the name of the thread changed may I also suggest that descriminatory generalisations be edited.

They are hardly in line with either the recent BMFA comments or the COC of this website.

[ken anderson.]

when you see what the lads with the feathers for covering can do to a jet engine,i think that its wise to keep away from a drone....doesn't bear thinking about if a large jet full off passengers was brought down by one....more so if it is attempting take off/landing..

ken anderson...ne...1 ..feathered dept.

[Ron Gray]

All this talk about more legislation, point of sale registration, Tx registration is a complete waste of time. Those who want to do this sort of thing won’t be in the slightest bit bothered by any of it. Restricting sales of drones that can fly outside VLOS, another waste of time as it’s easy enough to build your own from bits purchased in the Far East. The only way to combat these events is deployment of anti drone ‘military grade’ kit, it’s available, it’s very expensive but how much has the Gatwick disruption cost?

[Nigel R]

Gatwick airport did the right thing, no question.

I would personally have expected the drone(s) to be taken out, with haste, by marksmen. But what do I know, perhaps every time it went up it was hovering over people, using them as a human shield as it were. Perhaps the authorities were worried it was loaded with acid or explosive.

The real problem here is the lack of response, or perhaps lack of ability to respond, or maybe not being allowed to respond how they would like, which will now be worldwide news. The end result, aside from the chaos, being that drone attacks are now known to be unstoppable, to all intent and purpose.