Gatwick drone incident

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[David Elam]

Posted by Percy Verance on 22/12/2018 18:31:50:

Well if he's a model flyer then shame on him. He really ought to have known better, the fool - for want of a better word.

People have been arrested. That is all. Charges may or may not follow so let's not jump to conclusions. You have to think that any quadcopter flier from around the Gatwick area would certainly have been a prime suspect from the start of this saga.

[Don Fry]

I hope some clear and honest evidence is found, because the press wolves have devoured their reputation before even a charge sheet is read out. Just have a ponder, were it you, an unlucky coincidence. Try putting your life back together.

[Jonathan M]

Don, you're absolutely 100% right! Well said.

By the way, I heard Grant on the radio news earlier. He drew a very clear distinction between "model fliers" and [the minority of] drone operators who ignore the law which the government has already brought in. So he's clearly been properly briefed.

Edited By Jonathan M on 22/12/2018 20:11:52

[Jonathan M]

Edit - I meant to say I heard Grant Shapps, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation on the radio...

Also, following the distinction between model fliers and illegal drone operators which he has demonstrated he already understands, see: **LINK**

Edited By Jonathan M on 22/12/2018 21:10:06

[i12fly]

.....and the guy's boss can't understand how it could be him because he was at work when some of the sightings occurred. So let's wait and see what happens next.

[Peter Miller]

Talking of trying to convince the public of the differences between model aircraft and drones brings to mind one of my favourite expressions.

"I have made up my mind, Don't try and confuse me with the facts!"

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Posted by Braddock, VC on 21/12/2018 21:50:57:

I think they should be afforded the same status as shotguns, ie need a police permit and medical clearance to operate

Disagree. Operate what? A small multirotor? An FPV wing? A 15kg LMA Fokker? A foamy Wot4? A competition control line? A free flight Junior 60?

Given the creaky eyesight and dodgy tickers of the ageing populace who make up the majority of this hobby, medical clearance (probably related to club insurance) would kill it stone dead. Why should there be one set of rules for group A and one set for group B? Yes, I know the recent proposals factored in this, but the CAA allowed certain very specific exemptions to the ANO on a niche group basis as a result of talks with the BMFA.

Also, the police have better things to do.

FYI to get the PFCO you do have to get a CAA medical certificate and eye test as per a basic pilot license.

[Slickriff]

Unless I have read it wrong, fence disrupts radio signals, and I thought they had already said it was unlikely to be flying by radio. More likely to be a programmed flight using GPS, so how would that help?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[leccyflyer]

The story surrounding the couple arrested doesn't add up. It looks as though someone has just notified the authorities of someone in the vicinity who has flown drones and model aircraft -specifically helicopters.

The search for the guy's online activity, with the media showing pictures of his models and reviews of drone suppliers is the sort of thing which could be dredged up on almost anyone on this forum. It could simply be a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and, more worrying, being in the wrong hobby for some people.

Something to bear in mind in the rush to judgement.

[gangster]

If nothing else the events of the last few days have illustrated that the technology exist to fly an evil payload explosives etc to a sensitive target No amount of registration identification will prevent that. It will of course deter the “amateur” trouble maker

[Peter Miller]

On the radio this morning they said that Gatwick was offered the RAF system and an Isreali system immediately.

These would have pin pointed the drones and showed that they were not over the runway. This offer was refused. The minister concerned has been critisized severely,

[Rich too]

Posted by Percy Verance on 22/12/2018 15:58:05

A tricky one there John. Thousands killed and injured in car accidents each year, but do we ban cars? The problem isn't cars or drones, it's people. Or more to the point, the way some choose to behave......

Edited By Percy Verance on 22/12/2018 16:06:28

Exactly 👍

[Nigel R]

Leccyflyer my take as well.

Someone has been arrested. Action has been seen to have been taken.

Time will tell whether they genuinely are involved. Our just collateral. 

Edited By Nigel R on 23/12/2018 08:43:57

[Ben B]

24 hour delays will seem like "the good old days" early April this year!!!

[Jonathan M]

Posted by Peter Miller on 23/12/2018 08:27:13:

On the radio this morning they said that Gatwick was offered the RAF system and an Israeli system immediately.

These would have pin pointed the drones and showed that they were not over the runway. This offer was refused. The minister concerned has been critisized severely,

Yeah, but the cultural marxists would have been up in arms had anyone even considered purchasing anything, no matter how sensible, from their pet-hate...

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Daithi O Buitigh]

Maybe, but during the 'troubles' here, 'jammers' operated on 10.7 MHz (IF frequency for FM superhets) and blanked out not only CBs but also any FM ham band rigs.

That's the usual system - don't hit the operating band, but the intermediate frequency in the receivers and then it doesn't matter what band they are operating on

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Slickriff on 22/12/2018 22:10:07:
Unless I have read it wrong, fence disrupts radio signals, and I thought they had already said it was unlikely to be flying by radio. More likely to be a programmed flight using GPS, so how would that help?

The GPS problem should be relatively easy to sort out, and many airports will already have the necessary equipment.

Until fairly recently, civil users did not have access to the "military" grade GPS, which gave much improved accuracy. As a result, many airports installed equipment that enhanced the GPS signal. As I understand it, it worked by knowing exactly where it was, exactly where GPS *said* it was, and calculating the error based on that. This was then relayed over a short range signal so that GPS users (aircraft) knew *exactly* where they were.

It would be quite a simple matter to reverse the process and make the error greater, making a drone think it was over the airport when it wasn't!

Of course, when in operation, it wouldn't be available to aircraft automated systems, but that's why you have pilots up front! It would probably also confuse local road traffic using GPS, but that would be a small price to pay.

Probably an easier issue to solve than the 2.4 GHz (or whatever) control signal, and the equipment is probably already installed at a lot of sites.

--

Pete

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 23/12/2018 09:22:51:

Maybe, but during the 'troubles' here, 'jammers' operated on 10.7 MHz (IF frequency for FM superhets) and blanked out not only CBs but also any FM ham band rigs.

That's the usual system - don't hit the operating band, but the intermediate frequency in the receivers and then it doesn't matter what band they are operating on

I'm not sure that 2.4 GHz kit has an IF in the accepted sense of the term. It certainly isn't 10.7 MHz, or anything approaching it. But equally, its quite easy to build a highly directional aerial at 2.4GHz, which could be used to jam a specific area of the sky.

--

Pete

[cymaz]

Maybe, just maybe, the law might change on what frequency we are allowed to fly model aircraft/ drones/ quadcoptors. Coupled with the fact that geofencing,as I see it, will now be strengthened around all airport perimeters. The 2.4 ghz system seems very crowed these days.

With the tiny number of model pilots competed to say, mobiles phones, we could be an easy minority target. Tighter regulation on model frequencies and the introduction of “disable out of the sky” technology, we all might need to buy new radio gear. The dreaded knee-jerk government reaction.

Though, with global manufacturing, which suppliers would develop and build radio systems just for a uk market. Maybe it might be a European solution following some sort of easa ruling. I could be mistaken and being pessimistic...I hope so

[Piers Bowlan]

The UK signed up for this back in August 2018, pity it wasn't a bit earlier or it might have been in place in time to stop the chaos at Gatwick. This incident is clearly not good for our hobby but it could have been far worse had a terrorist organisation been involved. I am just relieved that this criminal act wasn't carried out by a fixed wing UAV. The media wouldn't be talking about a 'drone' but a 'toy plane' closing Gatwick and the 'ban it brigade' would be directing their wrath at all of us, as we would be tarred with the same brush.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 23/12/2018 10:18:42

[Don Fry]

From Peter Christy, 0931 post, "Of course, when in operation, it wouldn't be available to aircraft automated systems, but that's why you have pilots up front! It would probably also confuse local road traffic using GPS, but that would be a small price to pay."

i think a small price to who is the question, and whether those persons would consider it a small price. Or think, not my problem, therefore not my cost.

If drones are registered, and therefore all UAV devices, and they don't fly near airports, like say 15 miles, and shoot to kill policies on breaches are the norm.

I'm not advocating it, but it shows the difficulties the authorities face in sorting this mess out, and a few thousand middle aged men having their playtime restricted is not a majority priority.