Gatwick closed by drones
Discussion
Thankyou4calling said:
When the dust settles we will see what a massive over reaction this has been.
It’s the usual British disease, H and S regs, fear of being accused of negligence, compensation culture.
If it happened in many other countries it’d be done with in 30minutes.
I totally agree, it seems to be the British way to make it look like something is being done by causing maximum fuss and disruption. Same on the roads, it doesn't matter what time of day or night an accident happens, the road stays closed for at least one rush hour. If anything needs to be fixed (like a pothole) they're straight out with the cones and stripey tape to cordon off the area. It's pathetic. It’s the usual British disease, H and S regs, fear of being accused of negligence, compensation culture.
If it happened in many other countries it’d be done with in 30minutes.
Fartomatic5000 said:
Thankyou4calling said:
When the dust settles we will see what a massive over reaction this has been.
It’s the usual British disease, H and S regs, fear of being accused of negligence, compensation culture.
If it happened in many other countries it’d be done with in 30minutes.
I totally agree, it seems to be the British way to make it look like something is being done by causing maximum fuss and disruption. Same on the roads, it doesn't matter what time of day or night an accident happens, the road stays closed for at least one rush hour. If anything needs to be fixed (like a pothole) they're straight out with the cones and stripey tape to cordon off the area. It's pathetic. It’s the usual British disease, H and S regs, fear of being accused of negligence, compensation culture.
If it happened in many other countries it’d be done with in 30minutes.
king shoot it down. I refuse to believe that at no point it wasn’t in range of a shotgun. CthulhuTheGreat said:
If they are flying these in autonomous mode then the drone doesn't need a link to the remote controller once it's off on its pre-planned route. The drone is relying on a number of built in systems such as GPS receiver, visual measurement of height and so on and it will just continue on its route.
Blocking GPS will in most cases cause it some issues and depending on the on-board software may cause it to land, but I guess blocking GPS around an airport may not be that easy.
Just firing high powered radio at it may not have any affect on it.
Give the ground crews these:
https://www.sportsmanguncentre.co.uk/barnett-black...
Well before Drones were a thing, I used to fly model aeroplanes, and the components to build a UAV are available "off the shelf" for buttons these days. Back in the 90s when I built things out of balsa wood, they were very expensive. Blocking GPS will in most cases cause it some issues and depending on the on-board software may cause it to land, but I guess blocking GPS around an airport may not be that easy.
Just firing high powered radio at it may not have any affect on it.
Give the ground crews these:
https://www.sportsmanguncentre.co.uk/barnett-black...
Edited by CthulhuTheGreat on Thursday 20th December 08:44
You could very easily build something that you could lob out the back of a car, it would position using a GPS fix, and then use inertial navigation to fly around the airport. It probably wouldn't be hard to give it optical guidance, so it could lock onto the runway and make sure it doesn't drift. Bonus points for getting it to lock on to pairs of large circular objects if it spots any.
If that flew in a racetrack pattern at 300 meters, there is no way you could bring it down - out of range of shotguns, no one will be firing rifles in the air, it doesn't need GPS, it doesn't need radio. Short of some sort of EMP, or taking a chopper up with a net gun, it would stay there.
Even when it crashed, the debris wouldn't yield much - a bunch of commodity components. You could launch it anywhere within 10 miles of the airport, and shut it down for hours at a time. Realistically no chance of being caught.
As an act of economic vandalism, it is unsurpassed
p1stonhead said:
Kinda agree. fking shoot it down. I refuse to believe that at no point it wasn’t in range of a shotgun.
Why do you refuse to believe? How do you shoot down a dark object at night in a populated area with lots of expensive planes and equipment (radars, etc) around... with a shotgun that has an effective range of <75 yards?king shoot it down. I refuse to believe that at no point it wasn’t in range of a shotgun. schmalex said:
Who’s going to pay for them? And how many do you put where? Done properly, these things aren’t cheap and can only be controlled by properly trained people. Then there’s the cost of constant updates for the different types of drone etc.
I can’t go into detail, but it’s not as simple or as cheap as shoot it down or knock it out of the sky
You'd think the arm chair experts/Walts of PH would get this. But apparently not...I can’t go into detail, but it’s not as simple or as cheap as shoot it down or knock it out of the sky
Oh and other countries would handle it in 30mins, apparently
Smokehead said:
CthulhuTheGreat said:
Gatwick COO saying this is still flying around and is a "large drone"
This looks very much like a planned disruption rather and some moron pillocking around.
Lots of ground activity on FlightRadar24 , looks like they are chasing around the field searching.
https://www.flightradar24.com/51.15,-0.19/14
Could the droners be using FlightRadar24 to avoid the ground searchers? This looks very much like a planned disruption rather and some moron pillocking around.
Lots of ground activity on FlightRadar24 , looks like they are chasing around the field searching.
https://www.flightradar24.com/51.15,-0.19/14
Edited by CthulhuTheGreat on Thursday 20th December 07:52
Edited by CthulhuTheGreat on Thursday 20th December 07:58
The air traffic control at Gatwick went on radio silence for most of the incident to help avoid this I expect but are speaking to aircraft now. Looks like it’s still ongoing.
There’s still vehicles on the runway checking it out.
Yep the country that was able to win a world war 70 years ago now can’t rid the skies of a drone.
Let’s hold a 6 month public enquiry as is usual before putting in more legislation that’s ignored.
I despair of our lack of action.
Now it feels no one is prepared to do something for risk of offending or upsetting.
It really resonates of much wider issues. Police who wont pull a drowning man from a river, fire fighters who won’t go in a burning building, members of the public who’d rather film an old lady being mugged than rugby tackle the offender.
It’s all related .
Let’s hold a 6 month public enquiry as is usual before putting in more legislation that’s ignored.
I despair of our lack of action.
Now it feels no one is prepared to do something for risk of offending or upsetting.
It really resonates of much wider issues. Police who wont pull a drowning man from a river, fire fighters who won’t go in a burning building, members of the public who’d rather film an old lady being mugged than rugby tackle the offender.
It’s all related .
Vaud said:
1) Its a moving target in low light conditions (or rather dark earlier) and a very small object.
2) Sniper rifles are high velocity, long range (up to miles)
3) The sniper would be shooting upwards
4) A high velocity, say 0.50 calibre bullet could reach a populated area (or damage something critical)
Like shooting guns out of people's hands, it's more for films.
Thanks, that makes sense. 2) Sniper rifles are high velocity, long range (up to miles)
3) The sniper would be shooting upwards
4) A high velocity, say 0.50 calibre bullet could reach a populated area (or damage something critical)
Like shooting guns out of people's hands, it's more for films.
Another drone or a net cannon then surely!
Bring on the lasers - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/athe...
Vaud said:
p1stonhead said:
Kinda agree. fking shoot it down. I refuse to believe that at no point it wasn’t in range of a shotgun.
Why do you refuse to believe? How do you shoot down a dark object at night in a populated area with lots of expensive planes and equipment (radars, etc) around... with a shotgun that has an effective range of <75 yards?king shoot it down. I refuse to believe that at no point it wasn’t in range of a shotgun. What’s the cost of a drone falling on a plane or radar after being shot down vs closing the airport for a day?
Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 20th December 10:56
Mafffew said:
You'd think the arm chair experts/Walts of PH would get this. But apparently not...
Oh and other countries would handle it in 30mins, apparently
YupOh and other countries would handle it in 30mins, apparently
I was attending a test in Thailand last year and the manufacturer of a certain bit of kit said to the end user “take control of the drone, fly it low and fast towards us and watch this”.
To be fair, they managed to knock it out of the sky as it approached the assembled dignitaries at top speed. However, in losing control, it hit a tree at about 40mph and split into many pieces that then fired into the crowd like shrapnel, injuring a fair few people. At the same time, the inhibition device knocked out all radios and cell phones in the area.
It was chaos. There was a lot of muttering and that particular manufacturer chose not to do live tests any more.
I do wonder what planet some people are on…”just knock it down with a shotgun”
A moving target…at night…with a shotgun (or high powered rifle, equally stupid ideas). Let’s just get The Rock to do it whilst we’re at it, stood on the back of a pickup being driven by Jason Statham, then when the culprit is found Tom Cruise can chase him across the rooftops of Crawley.
A moving target…at night…with a shotgun (or high powered rifle, equally stupid ideas). Let’s just get The Rock to do it whilst we’re at it, stood on the back of a pickup being driven by Jason Statham, then when the culprit is found Tom Cruise can chase him across the rooftops of Crawley.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff