Gatwick Drone 'Attack'

How quickly jokes appear about major incidents has always fascinated me. BBC Radio 4's 'Saturday Live' programme started today by claiming to be a 'Brexit Free Drone'

If they had shot down the drone, would the police have been able to carry out the arrests?

Neil

You've said it several times now Neil - they aren't listening?

Does beg the question, if the army are there, what chance of finding a source in a real theatre of war if they are unable to get this bunch.

They just find the position to within 50 meters and drop 500lb on it. I think people would get a bit upset if it took out half the neighbourhood.

As for the lasers you would think that the army would be excluded from the ban on having laser pointers within range of the airport. Altho you would need to make sure they was no way they could end up swiping across the terminal block and cooking few holiday makers before they get to the beach.

.

Hopefully, therefore, someone will push prosecution for Conspiracy ...

[quote]

Generally, to support conspiracy charges, the prosecution must prove that (1) a person entered an agreement, (2) with at least one other person, and (3) that at least one person to the agreement performed an act to further the agreement.

[/quote]

.

In my opinion, the 5years for the drone offence would not be enough.

MichaelG.

.

Ref. https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/conspiracy-to-commit-a-crime.htm

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 10:09:46

They should also be fined a considerable amount (possibly the value of their houses) as a small token towards apologising to the thousands of people who suffered financial loss and massive inconvenience.

The pattern of the offence, repeated re-flights to extend the no-fly period, then a resumption which must have meen done if full awareness of the impacts. it's not a yob larking about but a planned disruption.

To me the big issue is whether or not it will be considered terrorism. This would obviously open the route to longer sentences.

"In the UK we define terrorism as a violent action that:

• Endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action
• Involves serious violence against a person
• Causes serious damage to property
• Creates a serious risk to the public’s health and safety
• Interferes with or seriously disrupts an electronic system"

You could argue it qualifies under 1 or 4, if the intent was to wilfully create a genuine risk to flying aircraft. This make take some effort to prove (e.g. did the drone go close to flight paths without warning whilst aircraft were in the area?)

There may not be much enthusiasm to class it as an act of terrorism as (a) it may encourage it to be sued as a tactic by terrorists and (b) the insurance industry will breathe a large sigh of relief as thousands of people are left without recourse to compensation.

Neil

Before deciding punishments I'd like to know more about 'why?'. Careless is out, but gormless is still in the frame, as are commercial, criminal and political motives.

The law is most appropriate against criminals. We know exactly where we are with them. After that it gets complicated:

• Putting two people in jail for 5 years for stupidity is expensive. It costs the tax payer about £340,000 plus whatever costs ensue when they're released. Unemployables are also a burden on the state.
• If the crime is commercial, then it's likely that the 'pilots' are mere pawns. It will be difficult to prove who should go to jail.
• If political, the way in which the action is perceived makes a huge difference. For example, if the airport was closed as a protest against the possibility of a second referendum, then Brexit-fans might be supportive. On the other hand, if the airport was closed in support of a second referendum, then Brexit-fans would be furious. Depending on your point of view the perpetrator could be either a hero or a villain. It's too easy to make martyrs.

Although two people have been arrested, it's possible that they are copy-cats (a sub-species of gormless). First reports were of 4 foot drones, whereas these twerps had a motorbike were caught stuffing two drones into a bag - that sounds more like toys.

We need more facts...

Dave

Aligning that to electric vehicles **LINK**

and **LINK**

or even **LINK**

Regards

.

Duly noted, Dave

I had not seen that reporting when I posted

MichaelG.

I have to disagree with the suggestions that ... a. a drone strike is likely or

b. that the damage shown in the clip previously has much validity.

The clip shows an object (drone?) being propelled at 200 mph at a static wing. The drone is not IN AERODYNAMIC condition and the wing is STATIC (no aerodynamic effect). That would, possibly, replicate a solid object impact result but totally ignores the airflow effects of BOTH drone and aircraft wing. It does not equate with a bird strike. IF and it is an ENORMOUS IF, any drone operator could manoeuvre the drone into aircraft proximity, the likelihood of a strike is minimal. Birds represent a hazard only because of their numbers and, therefore, the large total area presented. I would suggest that the whole episode response has been totally disproportionate and, unfortunately, typical of what has become the litigious 'snowflake' society!

rgds

Bill

Bill, the test, shows a hobby size drone hitting the leading edge of a wing at 238 mph and the damage caused. I dont know which or what "aerodynamic condition" or "aerodynamic effect" you are referring to but maybe you can explain how that changes things, it would be good to know.

Edited By Ron Laden on 22/12/2018 12:58:39

Edited By Ron Laden on 22/12/2018 13:25:27

I can't help seeing whoever is responsible for flying these drones so close to Gatwick as reckless and deeply stupid people, but there is another side to all of this that few people, least of all our government, seem willing to discuss. This other side is well articulated in a recent newspaper article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gatwick-drone-flights-delay-environmental-activists-a8694836.html

Well, this was a small phone battery, which was already pretty much discharged.
Anything solid entering an engine clearly isn't good, but having a battery do this inside a wing isn't ideal either.
Pardon Jane's mutterings at the end, I think she was a little surprised.
On the bright side she now charges her phone in slightly safer places.

Edited By peak4 on 22/12/2018 14:12:22

I was hoping to watch your video, Bill ... but it only appears to be a single image

MichaelG.

Ron - the aerodynamic effect is what you would see as the difference between , for example, a 'frisbee' and a pebble. Apart from the distribution of mass, the airflow effect on a 'flying' object is entirely different from that on an object travelling on a trajectory. If you then combine it with the airflow distribution over the AIRBORNE aircraft (not on the ground, static) the situation is entirely different from that depicted in the demo clip. Additionally, the indicated damage, while appearing severe, is, I would suggest, not structurally or life-threatening.

Examples of aerodynamic interference are readily seen in air-to-air refuelling - getting the probe into the drogue requires a VERY large amount of trim change and that is at some considerable separation.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, the sheer difficulty of intentionally positioning the drone would tax the talents of the very best of remote controllers - for demo, try model aircraft formation flying.

rgds

Bill

That's strange, it works at my end, on Win 10, using Opera as a browser.
This is a direct link, from the address bar but I don't know if you need a Flickr account to view it.

Edit;

Right, tried it from a different browser, and it claims "adult content", "you need to be logged in to view"

Seems that I inadvertently uploaded it to Flickr as "Moderate" content, rather than "Safe"

Now changed and works OK from Edge Browser, also checked in Firefox, Chrome, Avast, and Pale Moon.

Is anyone else able to view it as a video?

Bill

Edited By peak4 on 22/12/2018 15:32:52

Bill,

Whilst I happily defer to your wisdom in these matters concerning accidental collision ... I don't think we can assume that the large drone at Gatwick only presented an accident risk.

Surely the authorities are obliged to consider the possibility of malicious intent.

MichaelG.

Video works fine now using IOS 12 on an iPad.

.

All O.K. now, Bill ... both the direct link and your original post are working.

Thanks for whatever you did

MichaelG.