Drones over Gatwick

[Mice!]

7 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Something high up that can shoot down onto a drone that may fly at several hundred metres high, on an airfield.  Don't you think that these gun towers might present something of hindrance to the normal operation of an airfield where really tall things are generally very frowned upon?

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous, something like 1600 acres and we could police the skies above the airfield with shotguns.  A line of 400 guns down each perimeter fence i think was suggested working 8 hour shifts, gun loaded and held in the hip watching and waiting for 8 hours????

You get one decent crack at the target, providing it flies lower than 60 yards or so and then it is past the line of guns, of course knowing there is a line of 400 crack shots who'll nut the target out the sky the operator might just choose to fly it over the fence at 3000yds high, maybe even hover there for a few moments to taunt the guns then fly off to do their disruptive work.  Having regularly watched pheasants that are considerably bigger and slower then a drone flying across a line of guns at 30m and soar on by to freedom I'm not so sure that this approach would work.

The phalanx like mini gun is a definite contender though, have multiple autonomous radar operated machine guns around the periphery of airports that back onto logistics yards, warehouses, maintenance hangers, airline support services, hire car depots, car parks, public transport links, roads and motorways, hotels, offices, fields full of livestock, car parks full of plane spotters, etc  loosing off 20,000 rounds per minute safe in the knowledge that nothing could possibly go wrong with that scenario.  

Of course knowing that all these mega machine guns are poised to take down that drone within the periphery fence of the airport then maybe the disruptive types will just fly their drones on the landing or take off flight paths when the aircraft are flying above areas of high density housing and still within a perfectly accessible altitude for these drones.  Phalanx machine guns might not go down so well if in your back garden.

I was thinking of something mounted on the tower, obviously not hundreds of feet in the air or in the way of planes, this drone apparently flew past the tower and was identified?? If its hundreds of feet in the air then its an obvious no go.

Something will need to be done, its obviously not going to be a line of guns dressed in tweed, but I'm expecting something from the military, loads of good ideas from having just watched Iron man 😃 

[Scully]

52 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Something high up that can shoot down onto a drone that may fly at several hundred metres high, on an airfield.  Don't you think that these gun towers might present something of hindrance to the normal operation of an airfield where really tall things are generally very frowned upon?

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous, something like 1600 acres and we could police the skies above the airfield with shotguns.  A line of 400 guns down each perimeter fence i think was suggested working 8 hour shifts, gun loaded and held in the hip watching and waiting for 8 hours????

You get one decent crack at the target, providing it flies lower than 60 yards or so and then it is past the line of guns, of course knowing there is a line of 400 crack shots who'll nut the target out the sky the operator might just choose to fly it over the fence at 3000yds high, maybe even hover there for a few moments to taunt the guns then fly off to do their disruptive work.  Having regularly watched pheasants that are considerably bigger and slower then a drone flying across a line of guns at 30m and soar on by to freedom I'm not so sure that this approach would work.

The phalanx like mini gun is a definite contender though, have multiple autonomous radar operated machine guns around the periphery of airports that back onto logistics yards, warehouses, maintenance hangers, airline support services, hire car depots, car parks, public transport links, roads and motorways, hotels, offices, fields full of livestock, car parks full of plane spotters, etc  loosing off 20,000 rounds per minute safe in the knowledge that nothing could possibly go wrong with that scenario.  

Of course knowing that all these mega machine guns are poised to take down that drone within the periphery fence of the airport then maybe the disruptive types will just fly their drones on the landing or take off flight paths when the aircraft are flying above areas of high density housing and still within a perfectly accessible altitude for these drones.  Phalanx machine guns might not go down so well if in your back garden.

Phew....at last! Thought I’d been on holiday and returned on ‘donate your brain to a friend’ day. 🙂

[ordnance]

2 hours ago, KB1 said:

Its a tad different. We are vetted before being allowed to own firearms; anyone can buy a drone🙄  I own both, and I'm happy to be governed to a sensible degree if it helps to stop idiots like those at Gatwick.

How would it stop someone obtaining a drone or model aeroplane etc,  the ban has not stopped idiots getting firearms. 🙄The problem is there is no easy answer, the knee jerk response will be stricter controls so the government can look like its doing something, but that will not stop someone intent on obtaining a drone and causing disruption with it. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by ordnance

[Lloyd90]

On 21/12/2018 at 21:26, Munzy said:

But don’t you think that if this drone does cost £1,000+ as claimed then shooting it down within fifteen minutes of it appearing would deter someone from trying it a second time with a new drone? If they did have a second go and it was shot down within fifteen minutes again it strikes me it becomes a VERY expensive hobby and would end fairly quickly!

Probably (and looks like following arrest) some door handle thinking they're a right clever person, but things like this do have potential to be state organised disruption... just look at the disruption... think of how much it cost. 

Cobra and the security services were in meetings and looking to deploy the military... this wasn't as minor as some hobbyist flying their drone a bit too far. 

[ordnance]

Quote

Cobra and the security services were in meetings and looking to deploy the military... this wasn't as minor as some hobbyist flying their drone a bit too far. 

The military to do what. ? maybe the RAF to shoot them down.  More rubbish to look like they are doing something. 

[MarcMaxus]

The fix to this is quite simple, make sure geo-fencing is hard locked and cannot be bypassed. Can easily be done. Problem solved. No need for elaborate solutions! 

Or give ATC Stingers, worked for the Afgans...

On 21/12/2018 at 14:34, KB1 said:

+1

No. While not good on the aircraft, a single drone would be very unlikely to bring one down catastrophically. Same goes for birdstrikes. Either way it wouldn't be good! The disruption this has caused alone is bad enough. No amount of legislative change will stop this happening. I feel bad for the RC and drone guys as this gives them a bad name (similar to what can happen to us if something bad happens) no responsible operator in thier right mind would do this intentionally or accidentally. I have a Phanton 4 and probably fly it once a month at that, even then I am so, so careful. I was actually flying over Loch Ness once and literally 10 seconds from where I was flying 2 Typhoons did a (very) low pass (Yeah I did get a pic too :)) to this day I think 'what if...'

I believe the geo-fencing hard lock and a mandatory 10 year stretch is what's needed.

Edited December 23, 2018 by MarcMaxus

[poontang]

On 20/12/2018 at 18:34, poontang said:

Surely the police/military have some sort of super dooper radio frequency jamming device to bring down said drone? 

 

Seems like they took my advice. 😉

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6519211/The-2-6m-Israeli-Drone-Dome-Army-used-defeat-Gatwick-UAV.html

[Jaymo]

2 hours ago, MarcMaxus said:

The fix to this is quite simple, make sure geo-fencing is hard locked and cannot be bypassed. Can easily be done. Problem solved. No need for elaborate solutions! 

Or give ATC Stingers, worked for the Afgans...

No. While not good on the aircraft, a single drone would be very unlikely to bring one down catastrophically. Same goes for birdstrikes. Either way it wouldn't be good! The disruption this has caused alone is bad enough. No amount of legislative change will stop this happening. I feel bad for the RC and drone guys as this gives them a bad name (similar to what can happen to us if something bad happens) no responsible operator in thier right mind would do this intentionally or accidentally. I have a Phanton 4 and probably fly it once a month at that, even then I am so, so careful. I was actually flying over Loch Ness once and literally 10 seconds from where I was flying 2 Typhoons did a (very) low pass (Yeah I did get a pic too :)) to this day I think 'what if...'

I believe the geo-fencing hard lock and a mandatory 10 year stretch is what's needed.

Marc

Whilst I appreciate that you are a fellow aviator, I’m also saddened at your rather relaxed attitude ( possibly a lack of experience/ exposure to Commercial Jet Aviation) to the subject of potential hazards of strikes by feather or plastics ( was going to include ‘fur’ too as once had a fox run across the Rwy and once realised he was about to meet his maker, do a scooby doo like impression and scrabble back- too late as he went perfectly between the gear and props to come out unscathed. We were in the Landing rollout and saw the sod run off) 

If you wish to know how many “single strikes” have caused major incidents then I can forward you some ASR’s

[Dibble]

9 hours ago, grrclark said:

Something high up that can shoot down onto a drone that may fly at several hundred metres high, on an airfield.  Don't you think that these gun towers might present something of hindrance to the normal operation of an airfield where really tall things are generally very frowned upon?

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous, something like 1600 acres and we could police the skies above the airfield with shotguns.  A line of 400 guns down each perimeter fence i think was suggested working 8 hour shifts, gun loaded and held in the hip watching and waiting for 8 hours????

You get one decent crack at the target, providing it flies lower than 60 yards or so and then it is past the line of guns, of course knowing there is a line of 400 crack shots who'll nut the target out the sky the operator might just choose to fly it over the fence at 3000yds high, maybe even hover there for a few moments to taunt the guns then fly off to do their disruptive work.  Having regularly watched pheasants that are considerably bigger and slower then a drone flying across a line of guns at 30m and soar on by to freedom I'm not so sure that this approach would work.

The phalanx like mini gun is a definite contender though, have multiple autonomous radar operated machine guns around the periphery of airports that back onto logistics yards, warehouses, maintenance hangers, airline support services, hire car depots, car parks, public transport links, roads and motorways, hotels, offices, fields full of livestock, car parks full of plane spotters, etc  loosing off 20,000 rounds per minute safe in the knowledge that nothing could possibly go wrong with that scenario.  

Of course knowing that all these mega machine guns are poised to take down that drone within the periphery fence of the airport then maybe the disruptive types will just fly their drones on the landing or take off flight paths when the aircraft are flying above areas of high density housing and still within a perfectly accessible altitude for these drones.  Phalanx machine guns might not go down so well if in your back garden.

I did also mention that the winner could get the vacant peg at Sandringham on boxing Day. I really can't believe you're not taking my suggestion seriously.

 

Oh you are?

[MarcMaxus]

1 hour ago, Jaymo said:

Marc

Whilst I appreciate that you are a fellow aviator, I’m also saddened at your rather relaxed attitude ( possibly a lack of experience/ exposure to Commercial Jet Aviation) to the subject of potential hazards of strikes by feather or plastics ( was going to include ‘fur’ too as once had a fox run across the Rwy and once realised he was about to meet his maker, do a scooby doo like impression and scrabble back- too late as he went perfectly between the gear and props to come out unscathed. We were in the Landing rollout and saw the sod run off) 

If you wish to know how many “single strikes” have caused major incidents then I can forward you some ASR’s

Hi,

If you read a lot of the media reports, they will have you believe the jet will will explode into a tumbling fire ball upon impact and subsequently kill all the starving kids in Africa and reincarnate Hitler. 

I am aware the strikes can be serious and can cause serious damage. However anything hitting the airframe or engine is a major incident if we're being honest about it, but the aircraft will more than likley make a safe landing. Even if its in the Hudson River. Sorry if i seem to make light of it and having you experinced it 1st hand I certainly didn't mean to offend you or make light of the situation as a whole, wasn't my intent anyway. I would have bricked it. As you will know, most airliners can fly on one engine though was I guess the point I was trying to make.

This issue with drones scaring a lot of people when I really needn't, to the extent it is. Just my opinion.

Edited December 23, 2018 by MarcMaxus

[walshie]

On 21/12/2018 at 20:38, Harnser said:

Not quite right sir .  Nothing can free fall faster than terminal velocity . Many objects can fall slower than terminal Velocity depending on shape and size .

harnset

 

14 hours ago, Kalahari said:

Sorry, did my degree in physics, I am afraid I am right. If your theory was right a fighter jet couldn't break the sound barrier in a dive and that is demonstrably false. I agree nothing can fall faster than terminal velocity, but terminal velocity is not fixed. It is a variable dependent on g, drag and the aerodynamic properties of the falling object.

 

David.

Looks like there is some confusion over the term "terminal velocity." I agree with Harnser. Terminal velocity is when a falling object has reached a certain speed and is neither accelerating or decelerating. A feather would fall at the same speed as a ball bearing in a vacuum. Obviously this wouldn't happen in the atmosphere due to wind resistance.

I agree that terminal velocity is not fixed due to the different aerodynamic properties of the falling object, so yes, a fighter plane's terminal velocity (assuming it was falling nose first rather than spiralling down) would be higher than the above mentioned feather, but both would reach their respective terminal velocities and go no faster as gravity would be the same on both. Hence the word terminal. 

A fighter plane would not break the speed of sound in a dive if gravity was the only force acting on it, however aerodynamic it was. 

[Kalahari]

Well a grand slam bomb did back in the 1940s. The original quote I was disagreeing with was this " Terminal velocity is about 125 miles per hour . Any thing dropped from the air cannot free fall any faster  than terminal velocity" I agree terminal velocity for any chosen object is just that "terminal velocity" but it is hugely variable.

David.

[timmytree]

9 minutes ago, Kalahari said:

Well a grand slam bomb did back in the 1940s. The original quote I was disagreeing with was this " Terminal velocity is about 125 miles per hour . Any thing dropped from the air cannot free fall any faster  than terminal velocity" I agree terminal velocity for any chosen object is just that "terminal velocity" but it is hugely variable.

David.

Correct. 

When the Grand Slam was tested it was realised that as it broke the sound barrier the bomb wobbled slightly and was liable to deviate from it's aim point.

The solution was to slightly offset the fins which made it spin, this stabilised it.

[grrclark]

2 hours ago, Dibble said:

I did also mention that the winner could get the vacant peg at Sandringham on boxing Day. I really can't believe you're not taking my suggestion seriously.

 

Oh you are?

I wasn’t really, just that your post spared me working out the numbers and so was very convenient to use.

[grrclark]

11 hours ago, ordnance said:

How would it stop someone obtaining a drone or model aeroplane etc,  the ban has not stopped idiots getting firearms. 🙄The problem is there is no easy answer, the knee jerk response will be stricter controls so the government can look like its doing something, but that will not stop someone intent on obtaining a drone and causing disruption with it. 

Pretty much sums up for me what the outcome of more legislation would achieve.

There are already laws in place that make the activity at Gatwick illegal, breaking more laws doesn’t really make a difference.

Same as with firearm crime, some of our most stringently enforced laws are all about not shooting people and they carry much greater consequence than owning a gun illegaly, yet folk still do shoot people.  Amazing that the tougher firearms law didn’t stop that really 🤔

This crazy public clamour for even more legislation, that is mostly un-policeable and unenforceable, when things happen is insidious and dangerous.  We cannot and should not allow exceptional incidents by the tinniest minority have a day to day legislative impact on the overwhelming majority of people who do follow the rules.

Edited December 23, 2018 by grrclark

[Newbie to this]

The two people arrested, have been released without charge.

[ditchman]

13 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The two people arrested, have been released without charge.

the 2 people arrested have had there wedding photo plastered all over the sunday papers with headlines like "are these the morons that ............................."

and now they have been released without charge...............lawyers ...."here we come................."......and i mean bigstyle..........

 

how much do you rekon ?

[walshie]

2 minutes ago, ditchman said:

the 2 people arrested have had there wedding photo plastered all over the sunday papers with headlines like "are these the morons that ............................."

and now they have been released without charge...............lawyers ...."here we come................."......and i mean bigstyle..........

 

how much do you rekon ?

Millions. Not a bad Xmas present. 

[Mighty Ruler]

1 minute ago, walshie said:

Millions. Not a bad Xmas present. 

The idiot who decided to arrest them without any evidence should be made to pay their compo.

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, ditchman said:

the 2 people arrested have had there wedding photo plastered all over the sunday papers with headlines like "are these the morons that ............................."

and now they have been released without charge...............lawyers ...."here we come................."......and i mean bigstyle..........

 

how much do you rekon ?

 

3 minutes ago, walshie said:

Millions. Not a bad Xmas present. 

Yeah probably millions.

It seems that they had nothing to do with it at all.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Mighty Ruler said:

The idiot who decided to arrest them without any evidence should be made to pay their compo.

And whichever Police Officer sanctioned the release of their names!

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, ditchman said:

the 2 people arrested have had there wedding photo plastered all over the sunday papers with headlines like "are these the morons that ............................."

and now they have been released without charge...............lawyers ...."here we come................."......and i mean bigstyle..........

 

how much do you rekon ?

Typical British gutter press at its best, I hope they get a fortune in compensation.

[Ozz]

They shoot frozen chickens at planes to test against bird strike .how mutch damage would a small drone do .shurly bats birds and insects are an equil thret

[walshie]

I don't think the Police did release their names. Probably the same person who obviously grassed them up hoping for the £10k reward. All too easy now with everything on social media.

Edited December 23, 2018 by walshie

[grrclark]

2 minutes ago, Ozz said:

They shoot frozen chickens at planes to test against bird strike .how mutch damage would a small drone do .shurly bats birds and insects are an equil thret

I genuinely despair 😞