Drones over Gatwick

[mickyh]

Not the killing zone or the beaten zone (Army Lads will know what I'm talking about).

But the damage that could occur when a round, fired into the air, looses energy and falls to Earth.

Would it kill, penertrate or just bruise?

I'm afraid I dont know what size rounds may be fired to stop these Drones.

But something must be done quickly. 

They are back again !

[Scully]

41 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You cant disarm the populace overnight, it has to be done slowly, using whatever means and events available.
We have limited  private firearm ownership today, tomorrow is another matter.

I have no doubt that the drone laws will be tightened up after this, the new legislation was in the Europipeline anyway.
But will it stop rogue drone operators from doing this again ?
Just like a total UK wide handgun ban stopped handgun crime ?

No, you can't, and while there are those in positions of authority who would love to see this, ( and those who actively campaign for it ) there are equal numbers in positions of authority who will and have opposed this. Like I said, if sportsbobs'  theory held water it would have happened before now, as there has been ample opportunity for it. Tomorrow is indeed another matter.

But to get back on topic, all that springs to my mind is it's a good job whoever is behind this hasn't strapped any explosives to one....yet. I can't believe how powerless this has highlighted us to be. 

[panoma1]

7 hours ago, sportsbob said:

Here is a theory,

Handguns were banned for private target shooting because the powers in charge don`t want us to have the ability to defend ourselves against there oppression. It was reported that Hamiltons certificate had expired and renewal had been refused weeks prior to him doing what he did so he was actually in possession of illegally held firearms and not a licensed firearm holder. Weight to this theory is added in the form of current EU legislation and proposals presently being put forward to remove all private ownership of firearms.

Model flying will be banned because they don`t want us to have the ability to use the technology it offers again in the form of defence, reconnaissance or even attack.

Why would the powers in charge want this? simple there are too many people and modern technology keeps us informed of what is really happening even if the media propaganda machine censors the truth.

Regarding Hamilton, the UK government have imposed a 100 year secrecy notice on the case.........so there are things in there they don't want disclosed to the public.............until everyone alive at the time are all dead!

Another sign UK democracy is just an illusion.....they only tell us what they want us to know.....i.e., the mushroom effect " keep em in the dark and feed em ****"

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

all that springs to my mind is it's a good job whoever is behind this hasn't strapped any explosives to one

That's what's making me think it isn't terror related, it would have been done & dusted by now, stopping planes flying is one thing, but bringing a plane down (god forbid) would be street cred.

As for shooting one down, I would have thought it would be in the best interests to obtain one, the amount of forensics they could mass of one would certainly be an advantage.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Bazooka Joe

[Dougy]

No need to over complicate things, just use a shot gun. 

[ShootingEgg]

Any rifle round thats fired into the air at that angle, id imagine would be able to reach terminal velocity on the way down so all would be lethal. 

[mossy835]

years ago in the states.new years eve some one fired a rifle bullet in the air when it came to earth as you put it, it laned on a babys head and kill him.

[Lloyd90]

They need to catch who’s doing it not shoot it down, otherwise they’ll just be back next week with 2 drones. 

[derbyduck]

depleted urainium shot has been mentioned in the states ! don't think it would be suitable for blasting off around London.

[defender]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You cant disarm the populace overnight, it has to be done slowly, using whatever means and events available.
We have limited  private firearm ownership today, tomorrow is another matter.

I have no doubt that the drone laws will be tightened up after this, the new legislation was in the Europipeline anyway.
But will it stop rogue drone operators from doing this again ?
Just like a total UK wide handgun ban stopped handgun crime ?

and air gun licencing in Scotland stopped domestic pets being shot

[timmytree]

They haven't got close enough to identify it, they've got no chance of shooting the bloody thing. The best chance is some kind of electronic countermeasure.

I still reckon it's more than one and they're being flown/controlled from a vehicle.

[defender]

"More than 20 police units from two forces are searching for the perpetrator, who could face up to five years in jail"

More like a moderate fine and some community service thus sending the message its not that wrong to disrupt an airport.

Edited December 21, 2018 by defender

[Jason_ox]

.50 cal being shot straight up, think it may leave a mark if it hits you! 

 

[Harnser]

Terminal velocity is about 125 miles per hour . Any thing dropped from the air cannot free fall any faster  than terminal velocity . Objects can free fall a lot slower than terminal velocity such as a parachute . The weight of the object would make the difference as to would it be deadly . I don’t think that ,say a 150 grain bullet dropping at terminal would be deadly ,make your eyes smart , not deadly .

harnser

[Kalahari]

Sorry, terminal velocity is a movable amount depending on the shape, density and a few other things. A feather's terminal velocity is pretty low a brick's a lot faster and the Barnes Wallis "Grand Slam" at ten tons spin stabilised and very aerodynamic went supersonic before impact.

 

David.

 

 

[Harnser]

17 minutes ago, Kalahari said:

Sorry, terminal velocity is a movable amount depending on the shape, density and a few other things. A feather's terminal velocity is pretty low a brick's a lot faster and the Barnes Wallis "Grand Slam" at ten tons spin stabilised and very aerodynamic went supersonic before impact.

 

David.

 

 

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

[Winston72]

21 minutes ago, 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

Wikipedia suggests sky diver can achieve a terminal velocity of 300mph+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

[ShootingEgg]

Feel free to be hit by a free fall 150gr at 125mph be my guest, but id rather not get hit by it. 

[chrisjpainter]

Sadly, not that unusual. Googling celebratory gun fire deaths reveals a fair few incidents. What comes up, must come down, and if that thing is pointy and heavy, it's going to do damage

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by chrisjpainter

[Munzy]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

They need to catch who’s doing it not shoot it down, otherwise they’ll just be back next week with 2 drones. 

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!

[victorismyhero]

wrong terminal velocity of an object is dependant on air resistance above all. NOT on the wight of an object...remember the experiment of dropping to different wights of cannon balls of the eifel tower???

and  work out height  (in meters) and then go for acdeleration of 9.8m per second squared.......... in the first second your object will fall 9.8m and will be trveling at 9.8m per second after the 2nd second it will have fallen 19.6m and be travelling at 19.6m per second etc.....

 

look at the graph if an object fell from 313m it will be travelling at 78.4m per second  or about 35km/hr

it can be shown that velocity (in m/sec)= root (2gd) where g is accel due to gravity and d = distance

let distance = 1000m

so root(2 x9.8x1000)= 140 meters per second  or 5040 kph or 3150mph

[Winston72]

3 minutes ago, 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!

my thoughts too

[12gauge82]

Letting a round off at exactly 90 degrees and it will fall back to earth at terminal velocity, let one off at any other angle and it is far more lethal as it will still have forward momentum and speed as it reaches ground level, that's how it was described to me anyway, letting rounds off in the air is bad news.

[silver pigeon69]

17 minutes ago, 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!

Talking of cost etc. Are there shops you can walk in and pay cash for a commercial drone? Or are they all mail order, where you have to pay by card and they are delivered to an address?

 

[Munzy]

27 minutes ago, silver pigeon69 said:

Talking of cost etc. Are there shops you can walk in and pay cash for a commercial drone? Or are they all mail order, where you have to pay by card and they are delivered to an address?

 

Had our roof redone last year and the roofer arrived to quote with a small (1.5ft diameter) drone. He unlocked his iPhone, opened the drone’s app, clicked a button and up came a satellite map of where we were stood. He drew a flight path around the roof, dropped a couple of markers over each chimney and then entered a desired altitude. Then he clicked “Go”. The thing took off, went off on its programmed journey with no controller, hovered over the chimneys and then circled them and then came back and landed in the same spot. The roofer left with HD video footage of the roof and chimneys and I had a detailed quote the next day.

His drone cost £450 from a high street store. I assume there was nothing stopping him paying cash.

Now, as I understand it my roofers drone could do everything that this Gatwick drone seems to have done but perhaps his had less battery life AND would need to have the software reflashed to remove GPS restricted areas. My brother-in-law who is a drone nerd tells me that you can download the required software and instructions to remove the GPS restrictions for all popular drone models from the popular drone enthusiast forums for free.

There is no restriction to someone continuing this stunt other than how much it costs them. Therefore I maintain the best thing to do is ensure that every airport has a shotgun at the ready and they blast these things out of the sky. Ok, you don’t catch the operator but so what, they won’t keep buying new drones.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Munzy