Gatwick Drone 'Attack'

Looks like the airports are spending big bucks on anti drone tech. Could the Gatwick perpetrator be a salesman for anti drone tech.?

Mike

And then there is this theory - Does seem quite credible - most of the public dronesightings 'were' in fact Police drones trying to chase and find hackers who had hacked the Gatwick Flight Controller systems, thereby preventing safe management of flights ...'Nothing' to do with drones being the reason for flights grounded..

**LINK**

Joe

Wouldn't be the first time! Charles Algernon Parsons arrived uninvited at the 1897 Spithead Navy Review and ran rings around the Royal Navy in the Turbinia. The review being held in celebration of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee at the peak of British Naval power ensured maximum publicity. Having made his point Parsons went on to commercial success.

Parsons was respectable in comparison with Sir Basil Zarahoff GCB, GBE. At a time when submarines were still being developed and were highly unreliable, Sir Basil famously sold one to Greece, then - on the basis of the new Greek threat thus caused, he sold two more to Turkey, before moving on to Russia and selling them two to protect the Black Sea against the Turks. The submarines weren't 'fit for purpose'; unstable when submerged and no-one ever got coal burning boilers to work satisfactorily underwater. This wasn't an isolated incident: bribery, sabotage, bigamy, seduction, arms trafficking, destabilising governments, he did it all.

Dave

There are lots of options available to a determined wrongdoer. You don't have to use off the shelf devices with known technology. I bought a high speed jet propelled UAV from Holland several years ago

**LINK**

This was pre-gps and could fly a pre-programmed route using internal sensors only. £1200 including the ground support and flight programming equipment.

I'm not going to go into other options on a public forum and suggest others don't either.

Robert G8RPI.

There is another theory that there was a credible terrorist threat of some sort and on safety grounds without "scaring" the public, the drone story was concocted to cancel flights while the terrorist issue was identified and dealt with.

S O D - " This wasn't an isolated incident: bribery, sabotage, bigamy, seduction, arms trafficking, destabilising governments, he did it all. "

NO change there, then !

rgds

Bill

A couple of good theories, but where do the couple that the police detained for 36 hours fit in? did they exist ?lol

In the mean time, Coventry council have just announced that they are going to ban all drone and UAV flights over council owned public spaces except for limited pre-authorised commercial flights, with an additional charge for any photography that takes place.

I'm not actually certain that this decision would stand up if challenged in court.

In reality they don't need additional laws, it's virtually impossible to operate a UAV from a public place without breaching the exisiting law (Air Navigation Order). even if you waited until the area as clear before taking off you can't stop somene wandering into your landing area.

Edited By Robert Atkinson 2 on 04/01/2019 17:51:06

Edited By Robert Atkinson 2 on 04/01/2019 17:51:26

The drones now appear to have moved on to Heathrow.

**LINK**

Looks like Stuart Cundy, of the Met, has upped the stakes:

“Under the Aviation Security Act it is an offence to endanger the safety of an aircraft, anyone found guilty of this offence could face a life sentence."

MichaelG.

Imagine how easy it would be to disable the RAF quick reaction force, just fly a drone or two around the runways. And how long will it be before the local scum bags take out the police helicopters while their mates go out and do a nights work?

I don't we are getting all the information here.................as usual .

I doubt the RAF would be deterred by a random drone but imagine a cloud of explosive drones to protect a sensitive installation from attack, a weapon that if not used would return to its charge point and wait for the next alert.

Mike

The other night the Police Helicopter in Auckland NZ had to with - draw and land when it came within 5 /10 metres at about 420 metres altitude.

Ian S C

The real danger is going to be drones carrying explosives to their target. With a live camera link, you can pretty much fly it through any opening large enough to accommodate it.

Simple answer would be … whoever buys a drone has to register it with the CAA with it's serial #, model #, name & address of the owner. These drones are usually operable within a 1or 2 kilometres of the control system ( apart from industrial / film / TV production models ) so should one be 'captured' then the authorities only have to look within that radius to locate the owner …?. Just my two pence worth.

George.

1/ Why would a criminal register a drone? Limiting supply or sales would be difficult with a global market and even DIY kits **LINK**

2/ You don't need an operator. Drones can be pre-programmed and could be pre-placed on a roof days previously. GPS is not the only navigation option and you can't go jamming GPS at an airport anyway.

3/ If active "man in loop control" was needed then there are various methods that could be used for long distance control.

This is potentially a big problem and there are other variations that could make a drone more of a hazard but I'm not going to give potential wrongdoers any hints.

Robert.

Just like banning handguns in 1997 stopped hand gun crime in England.

So you buy a drone directly from China via eBay, and don't register it with the CAA.

How is that then policed?

Drones could provide a much more cost effective way to keep track of the scum bags than the helicopter.