Jump to content

Drones over Gatwick


defender
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, stumfelter said:

Surely the obvious answer would be to fit a turret to all civil aircraft with quad rapid fire .22 guns so they could shoot down any drones that approach. The stewardesses could take it in turn to man the turret in-between serving drinks,snacks, consoling children etc.

I hope the Pilots are allowed a go too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 472
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

any decent mutlirotor system will sort itself in a couple seconds after being hit and if its got 6 or more motors it can lose a couple with little ill effect.

I started building my own about 10 years ago before you could by off the shelf ready to go "drones", even back then with decent gyros, accelerometers, gps and even barometers (for alt hold) you could build a rock steady take a few knocks system.

If they're decent systems being uses all that needs to be done is use direction 2.4ghz (or whatever is being used to control the system) to sever the control, once down the "drone" should go into fail safe and fly back to its point of origin where the offendending operator can be located.

Edited by thepasty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thepasty said:

any decent mutlirotor system will sort itself in a couple seconds after being hit and if its got 6 or more motors it can lose a couple with little ill effect.

I started building my own about 10 years ago before you could by off the shelf ready to go "drones".

Even if fully inverted? 

Here's the video:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lord v said:

yup

even my old diy jobs you could throw into the air inverted and spinning and they would sort themselves out in a few feet.

Edited by thepasty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police can't find a perpetrator .......... so it therefore follows ............ there can't have been one ............ and if there was no perpetrator, then nothing can have taken place.

Thats why you should concentrate on catching motorists - no doubts then - caught red handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Prawn said:

Well now they’re saying there might not have been any drones at all as nobody has any footage and there are no eyewitnesses! What a fiasco if true

I said that on day one. 100,000 people couldn't manage to get one blurry photo of said drone. The only video footage of it looked more like a bird than a drone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, walshie said:

I said that on day one. 100,000 people couldn't manage to get one blurry photo of said drone. The only video footage of it looked more like a bird than a drone. 

Well - it flew so close to the control tower, it is reported they identified the type - and one also apparently crashed and (its debris) was recovered.  I also heard a radio interview with the airports COO who said he could see it over the runway as he was speaking.

Staff at airports are very experienced in knowing about birds on airfields - as they are an issue for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed this in the article, surprised nobody has mentioned it as rather odd, were they reluctant because they "knew" it would be a waste of resources 😶  or because they feared its ineffectiveness would be too embarrassing to bear ? 

Questions as to why MPs refused to sanction team of military electronic warfare specialists to halt the drone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Well - it flew so close to the control tower, it is reported they identified the type - and one also apparently crashed and (its debris) was recovered.  I also heard a radio interview with the airports COO who said he could see it over the runway as he was speaking.

Staff at airports are very experienced in knowing about birds on airfields - as they are an issue for them.

I agree. Someone is telling porkies though. The police wouldn't admit there might not have been a drone if these experts had all seen one as it would make one or both of them look totally stupid.

They are so inept, they'll probably find the "crashed drone" is a hedgehog roadkill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, walshie said:

I agree. Someone is telling porkies though. The police wouldn't admit there might not have been a drone if these experts had all seen one as it would make one or both of them look totally stupid.

They are so inept, they'll probably find the "crashed drone" is a hedgehog roadkill. 

It is all very strange - which is why I carefully used the phrase "it is reported" :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scully said:

So are we to assume that all it takes to shut down an international airport is for one person to say they have seen a drone?

I think there is a view in the police that is so.  I don't believe it is so.  People who run airports and do tasks like air traffic control are pretty experienced and very level headed people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

So are we to assume that all it takes to shut down an international airport is for one person to say they have seen a drone?

Could be, are we looking at a massive overreaction. Are there any photos of these drones. ? I would have thought if you seen a drone you would take a photo of it. 

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Are there any photos of these drones. ?

Some (including video) have been shown ......... but they aren't very close or clear (or at least the ones I looked at weren't).  However, one apparently flew close enough to the air traffic control tower to identify the type - and air traffic controllers aren't "imaginative types".

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaymo said:

FOD has never caused an incident! Oh wait - Air France Concorde among others

But Concorde was an accident waiting to happen. Supersonic Passenger Aircraft built to military standards, with one notable exception - no ejector seats! I was in a meeting with the chief design engineer before Concorde flew. He was proudly talking about how the technology of supersonic jet fighters had been used for the passenger aircraft. You could hear the cogs grinding when I asked him if each passenger would have an ejector seat! The rest is history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fisheruk said:

But Concorde was an accident waiting to happen. Supersonic Passenger Aircraft built to military standards, with one notable exception - no ejector seats! I was in a meeting with the chief design engineer before Concorde flew. He was proudly talking about how the technology of supersonic jet fighters had been used for the passenger aircraft. You could hear the cogs grinding when I asked him if each passenger would have an ejector seat! The rest is history.

Still, was a piece of FOD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

no doubt there will be armed versions of these tiny things adapted for the battle field. One can easily imagine automatic versions of these being triggered remotely from miles away (using video footage from other surveillance drones) which will zip across valleys and terrain and self detonate a yard or two above clusters of hapless soldiers, possibly even in complete darkness. 

All ready been thought of a good while ago.

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/drones-isis/134542/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Still, was a piece of FOD

It was actually a piece of debris from  a previous flight that had fallen onto the runway. Concorde’s wheels ran over it and flicked it up, where it went through the wing and punctured the fuel tank which was directly above the wheels. That is the difference between civil and military design which caused the catastrophe. With a military fighter aircraft it doesn’t matter if the fuel tank ruptures you can still get out with the ejector, not so with Concorde. In civilian airliners the fuel tanks are not usually above the wheels.

Edited by Fisheruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fisheruk said:

It was actually a piece of debris from  a previous flight that had fallen onto the runway. Concorde’s wheels ran over it and flicked it up, where it went through the wing and punctured the fuel tank which was directly above the wheels. That is the difference between civil and military design which caused the catastrophe. With a military fighter aircraft it doesn’t matter if the fuel tank ruptures you can still get out with the ejector, not so with Concorde. In civilian airliners the fuel tanks are not usually above the wheels.

That dear chap is FOD , very well aware of the Concorde disaster and have read in depth, the BEA report.

We won’t even taxi over baggage labels for their ingestion risk, every Airport has FOD bins dotted around for various bits that seem to magically appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fisheruk said:

It was actually a piece of debris from  a previous flight that had fallen onto the runway. Concorde’s wheels ran over it and flicked it up, where it went through the wing and punctured the fuel tank which was directly above the wheels. That is the difference between civil and military design which caused the catastrophe. With a military fighter aircraft it doesn’t matter if the fuel tank ruptures you can still get out with the ejector, not so with Concorde. In civilian airliners the fuel tanks are not usually above the wheels.

Are then not usually above the wheels. 

 

 

cmpcht_1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...