News Gatwick Airport: Drone sightings cause delays

[Notebook]

Not terror related, just an idiot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754

N.

 

[Marijn]

I am having a hard time to believe this story. Two drones were 'spotted'. In the dark. Then, six hours later, at 0300 hrs, the runway was closed again. This raises quite a few questions.

Why would two people, operating two drones, risk their equipment and risk a huge fine or even imprisonment?

Why were they not caught when they did return six hours later? Security levels should have been very high at that time.

How were they able to operate the drones? Line of sight? Darkness? LED lights? If the answer is GPS, how did they manage their altitide above terrain level and avoid buildings etc?

What about the batteries? They can't have flown very far.

This story does not make any sense. Until I have seen pics or someone confesses, I think it's not based on truth.

 

[RisingFury]

The leading theory right now is that this is a protest against deportation of people to Africa. Someone might have purchased a lot of cheap drones and programmed them to fly an autopiloted route over the airport.

Avoiding buildings? Simple. Just fly at 100 m altitude.

 

[Notebook]

Its a genuine story, its being debated in The House of Lords now.

Wether its a case of over-reaction by Gatwick operator, they are on a hiding to nothing if one goes in an engine, or smacks into a windscreen.

N.

 

[4throck]

Wild guess: internal security test by whatever entities are responsible for such things.

 

[Notebook]

I doubt it, the disruption is enormous.

Need a few of these.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones


N.

 

[APDAF]

Welp now all drones will likely be banned in the UK unless you have a special impossible to acquire license unless you are a part of a drone guild.

Seriously though, they did the right thing in closing the airport, if a drone got sucked into an engine it would likely be worse than a bird.

 

[Marijn]

Need a few of these.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones

The Dutch police started training these birds in 2016. The project was canceled about a year ago. It proved to be complex and expensive to keep these birds. They were not effective and there were no actual cases to deploy them.

Anyone could have predicted this.

I know many pilots. They all absolutely hate drones. With reason, because they can be deadly in case of a mid-air collision. I fly small aircraft myself so I have good reason to agree with them. And of course, I do.

But I also know that many 'incidents' have been made up or are second-hand exaggerated stories. Facts are seldom verified because no-one ever questions a pilot or an air traffic controller. But they lie just as easily as anyone else. They don't care about that, because if drones are banned, they will see that as a good thing.

I don't think anyone will be arrested.

 

[Thorsten]

It does seem spooky that this is possible at all. I'd have imagined that someone would have anticipated the scenario even a few years ago, there'd be all sorts of contingency plans in the drawer and the whole situation would be resolved within 30 minutes.

Actually what have security people been doing in the last years to be caught like that? This is not a particularly far-fetched scenario at all.

 

[Notebook]

Gatwick opened this morning, closed again after a drone spotted.

Not doing too well in the anti-drone field.

N.

 

[emin2004]

shoot dem drones down

Drones Are buzzing EveryWhere




how about..... we Shoot Dem Drones Down

if their heading to Any Airports, We shoot dem down

"Breaths in".............................. Boi

 

[Linguofreak]

I am having a hard time to believe this story. Two drones were 'spotted'. In the dark. Then, six hours later, at 0300 hrs, the runway was closed again. This raises quite a few questions.

If the perpetrator was intending to DOS the airport, I imagine the drone would be carrying lights to make sure it was seen.

 

[Notebook]

emin2004 above.

I haven't any probs with that.
Many centuries ag when I was flying(mostly crashing) r/c model aircraft I had 3rd party public insurance. I joined a local club, and they insisted on it.


Trouble is these drones are so easy to fly, they don't seem dangerous. The obvious lack of skill when I was flying, made it obvious they were very dangerous!


Sometimes progress isn't always good.

N.

 

[jangofett287]

how about..... we Shoot Dem Drones Down

Here's why we haven't done that: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/20/gatwick_drone_non_shootdown_reasons/

 

[Marijn]

I imagine the drone would be carrying lights to make sure it was seen.

The absence of trivial information such as the question whether the drone was carrying lights, is what is raising my suspicion. Who has seen what?

If it was carrying lights, serveral people should have seen it. Some cameras should have had in in their field of vision. They should have heard the noise as well. Did someone hear anything?

If the drone was not carrying lights, then the whole flight had to me programmed. In such a way that they knew that they, both the operator and the drone, wouldn't be caught. That's a risky endevour and not an easy thing to do. In this story, there were two drones.

Explanations which raises more questions than they answer are generally not good explanations.

 

[Thorsten]

Here's why we haven't done that:

It frankly doesn't sound overly compelling.

Sure, a drone falling down could potentially crash into something and cause damage. It could crash into something really expensive (like an airplane). A bullet could cause damage to something (actually, shooting at a very steep angle, the point where the bullet returns to the ground could be reasonably constrained).

Except - compare this with the cost of closing an airport for 36 hours and grounding the passengers, causing canceled business meetings and all the shbang etc. I have a hunch the latter is quite a bit more.

Also, a fairly obvious idea would be a *really large* drone operated by airport security with a net underneath... Sure, it's probably expensive to have something like that on standby and a trained crew.

But... compare with the cost of closing an airport for 36 hours...

 

[Artlav]

Trouble is these drones are so easy to fly, they don't seem dangerous

And that's the scariest thing.
I used to build quadrotors from scratch, and they are fundamentally unstable and are really hard to keep in the air. Reasonable manual flight software still needs considerable experience and an understanding of the aerodynamics involved.

That fully automatic flight software controlled by an app on your phone? Beneath it is barely contained chaos itching to unleash the flying guillotine.

 

[Notebook]

Arrests made over this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505

Might find out what the motivation for this was.

N.

 

[Sunhillow]

So let us hope they were the idiots and no copycats will arise

 

[Lucy]

It frankly doesn't sound overly compelling.

Sure, a drone falling down could potentially crash into something and cause damage. It could crash into something really expensive (like an airplane). A bullet could cause damage to something (actually, shooting at a very steep angle, the point where the bullet returns to the ground could be reasonably constrained).

Except - compare this with the cost of closing an airport for 36 hours and grounding the passengers, causing canceled business meetings and all the shbang etc. I have a hunch the latter is quite a bit more.

Also, a fairly obvious idea would be a *really large* drone operated by airport security with a net underneath... Sure, it's probably expensive to have something like that on standby and a trained crew.

But... compare with the cost of closing an airport for 36 hours...

It's not cost, in my opinion, it's an insurance move. Gatwick cannot afford to have an incident that damages a plane; that leads to serious questions of competence surrounding why the airfield was kept open when it was dangerous to do so, and though I don't have the regulation in front of me I'd wager they are actually obliged to keep the airfield closed in this kind of circumstance.

Yes, Gatwick is a business, but this wasn't a straight revenue-loss decision, otherwise they probably would have taken the hit and run planes anyway.