Airport drone problem

[zico]

A couple of drones have been causing chaos over Gatwick last night and this morning. For anyone wanting to damage the UK, this is a very effective and low-risk way of doing it, particularly for ISIS supporters as maximum jail term for drone misuse is 5 years, and it would be easy to plead stupidity as a defence in court. Leave fanatics or Remain fanatics could also threaten this tactic if they don't get their respective ways. Surprised it hasn't happened sooner, to be honest.

Gatwick have said they can't shoot them down because police have advised of the risk of stray bullets causing harm (which sounds a bit weak to me).
So what's the solution?

a) Ignore the police advice and shoot them down anyway.
b) A good guy with a drone. In this case bigger faster drones that can force down the bad drones.
c) Ban drones and deport every drone owner to Botany Bay, with the side benefit of stopping irritating drone whine at beauty spots. Harsh, but fair?
d) Other ideas?

[bungeejumper]

AFAIK, shotgun pellets will take out a drone without too much fuss. That still leaves the question of what will happen when it hits the earth. Which is not an inconsiderable matter when you consider that the only ones that need to be registered are the ones that weigh more than 250 kg.

250 kg? I've had smaller motorbikes!

BJ

[Ashfordian]

A couple of drones have been causing chaos over Gatwick last night and this morning. For anyone wanting to damage the UK, this is a very effective and low-risk way of doing it, particularly for ISIS supporters as maximum jail term for drone misuse is 5 years, and it would be easy to plead stupidity as a defence in court. Leave fanatics or Remain fanatics could also threaten this tactic if they don't get their respective ways. Surprised it hasn't happened sooner, to be honest.

A bit of reality on this.

Much more likely to be climate change nutters/anti-airport nutters than any of the groups you reference above who will create and cause this disruption

[moorfield]

Love the conspiracy theories here and the instant "it's the Russians" reaction from people in my office this morning! Drones are a menace, everywhere. At a village fete recently one nearly hit me, transpired it was being flown by a semi inebriated idiot who had already been reported to police.

The tech surely exists already to fit with "black boxes" and register/unlock these to a linked ID. I wasn't a fan of Tony Blair's ID cards scheme 10 years ago but that would be one way forward perhaps.

Granted, that wouldn't stop the Russians smuggling drones hidden in perfume bottles though.

[robbelg]

250 kg? I've had smaller motorbikes!

BJ

It's 250 GRAMS with further restrictions if its above 20 Kg

Rob

[zico]

Much more likely to be climate change nutters/anti-airport nutters than any of the groups you reference above who will create and cause this disruption
Top

We're all just speculating at this stage, but it's not the normal modus operandi of environmentalists, who prefer to chain themselves together on runways and take selfies of themselves heroically engaging in "direct action".

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a toss-up between bored/moronic teenagers mucking about or ISIS sympathisers.
But the point remains that the basic disruption technique could easily be used by any group with a grudge who doesn't care how much disruption they make as long as their view is aired.

Incidentally, the maximum 5 year prison term is for endangering an aircraft, so I'd have thought any competent defence lawyer could argue that flying drones to prevent aircraft taking off isn't actually endangering them.

[bungeejumper]

It's 250 GRAMS with further restrictions if its above 20 Kg

LOL, thanks. Red face.

BJ

[flyer61]

I’m at Gatwick. Very little police activity. There must be more to this than meets the eye.

[Alaric]

There must be more to this than meets the eye.

Stray bullets is a very lame excuse and not one usually used when armed police are deployed. Wouldn't a gun used for shooting birds be powerful enough?

[zico]

Excellent! Eagles it is.

[mike]

Do the army or air-force not have some sort of mini- or micro-guided weapon for use against drones. It's not as if drone are new on the scene.

Of course there would be a public safety issue using such a weapon at Gatwick, but does anyone know if they exist ? Or is it hush hush ?

[Clitheroekid]

It's utterly absurd that such a piddling little device can close down a whole airport. And I can't believe the rubbish that the risk of `stray bullets' prevents the Plod from shooting them down - that really is `elf and safety gorn mad'. In any case, you surely wouldn't use bullets to shoot them down - would a shotgun not be more appropriate, in which case there's no problem? Though maybe they're flying out of range of a shotgun.

Perhaps it's time to introduce some form of licensing, so that a drone could only be sold to someone holding a license - a bit like the system for licensing guns. After all, they have the same potential for damage as a gun. There should also be a requirement for compulsory insurance. It's often struck me that the potential for damage if one goes out of control is massive, and I doubt most operators do carry any insurance.

I don't know how difficult it would be to trace a drone operator, but presumably there would only be even a chance of doing so while they're actually transmitting a signal. If the operators in this case remain untraced / unprosecuted it's an open invitation to every other moron / would be terrorist to follow suit.

[Clitheroekid]

So what's the solution?

Eagles!

Send in the eagles!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKNN49idCUo

It seems a bit tough on the eagles. I'd imagine those rotors could cause quite serious injuries to the bird's feet and legs.

[zico]

Quote below from an article in the Guardian.

But it’s not that airports, with their huge security budgets, don’t have access to countermeasures. They do. “Drone rifles” are now widely available to the military or the police and Donald Trump’s Secret Service contingent never travel without one. These devices, pointed in the direction of an intruding drone threat simply disable it, causing it to land on its autopilot. End of story.

Why then, you may ask, have the police or the airport at Gatwick not deployed a drone countermeasure if, as stated, they know where one or even two drones are above the airport? It’s a mystery and leads one to wonder whether after all the warnings, they simply didn’t take the threat of a drone bringing the airport to a complete halt seriously enough. Worse still perhaps is the terrorist threat posed to airports by the consumer drones that Isis has used to dramatic effect in Syria and Iraq.

I expect what's happening here is that the drones are being activated and flown for a very short period of time every few hours, just long enough for their presence to be noticed, but not long enough for them to be found and destroyed.

[bungeejumper]

I expect what's happening here is that the drones are being activated and flown for a very short period of time every few hours, just long enough for their presence to be noticed, but not long enough for them to be found and destroyed.

I'd prefer to think that plod's aim is to get a fix on the drones, log their radio signatures (or whatever), and then follow them back to their handlers. Which might take a few tries.

BJ

[Ashfordian]

Incidentally, the maximum 5 year prison term is for endangering an aircraft, so I'd have thought any competent defence lawyer could argue that flying drones to prevent aircraft taking off isn't actually endangering them.

I've got a better idea for the punishment of this individual(s).

Send said person into the airport wearing a sandwich board reading "I fly drones over airports". For every hour of disruption caused that's how long they have to walk(if still possible) around the airport for.

Problem solved within 48 hours...

[Rhyd6]

Depending on the height they are being flown a shotgun would be more effective that a rifle. You'd have to be a damn good shot and as thet were apparently being flown at night you'd need good night sights. I'm a reasonable shot but I'm not sure I'd want to risk it in a built up area especially with todays litigious society. There are time when I am so thankful that I hate flying so don't bother.

R6

[Ashfordian]

Much more likely to be climate change nutters/anti-airport nutters than any of the groups you reference above who will create and cause this disruption
Top

We're all just speculating at this stage, but it's not the normal modus operandi of environmentalists, who prefer to chain themselves together on runways and take selfies of themselves heroically engaging in "direct action".

Well now the environmental nut jobs can cause airport disruption/shutdowns just by flying a drone intermittently as you have described. Or disruption can now be achieved by reporting fake sightings.

Both the above can be done with much less risk of having to spend any time at her majesty's pleasure with way more disruption.

[zico]

Tweet below from "climate change nutters".

Extinction Rebellion is not involved with the drones at Gatwick Airport. We've heard there are rumours circulating. We remind people that our actions are always 'above the ground' meaning we stand by our actions, are accountable and take the consequences #ExtinctionRebellionE

In other words, they like to have selfies of their actions.

[richfool]

Shotguns only have a limited range, - say 40m - 80ms and fire a spray/spread of small pellets. For precision and distance it would need to be a (single) bullet fired from a rifle, which then has a far greater velocity and is effective at much greater distances, - distances of well over a mile, which of course would make it much more dangerous. To try and reduce risk, it would then need to be fired upwards from the ground (from somewhere nearly underneath the drone) though there would still be a danger of where the bullet falls back to earth.

I wonder if a military aircraft with radar could successfully track where the drone(s) is being despatched/coming from.