Gatwick Drone ‘Attack’

[Phil H1Participant @philh196021]

I am interested in the 'why' rather than a bit of disruption. We have had radio control planes and helicopters I the hands of teenagers for donkeys years with no known incidents of this nature – I don't think.

I think the question is why people would wish to bother causing this kind of disruption – along with damage to 999 vehicles. Why are people doing it?

Phil H

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Mick Charity on 21/12/2018 09:54:21:…

…Did the IRA stop anyone shopping in London, drinking in a bars in Birmingham, or even gathering around a memorial on the 11th day. I've never met anyone whose fear of flying is based on the belief that the plane is going to be hi-jacked.

Well, you still remember those incidents and the associated names all these years later, so it has impinged on your consciousness to some extent. I doubt most people — other than those actually left waiting at the airport — will remember the Gatwick drones in six months' time.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

As for reasons why this is being done. Well I could imagine it's something as simple as a disgruntled person who had no alternative but to pay exorbitant parking fees there, doing it to 'level things out a bit'.

Martin.

[WatfordParticipant @watford]

Drone(s) not shot down because of the risk of a stray bullet, we learn. Who ever does these 'risk assessments' and then allows armed police with (presumably loaded) weapons to roam around the very crowded concourse just a few hundred yards away?

Mike

[martin perman 1Participant @martinperman1]

Posted by Watford on 21/12/2018 12:32:18:

Drone(s) not shot down because of the risk of a stray bullet, we learn. Who ever does these 'risk assessments' and then allows armed police with (presumably loaded) weapons to roam around the very crowded concourse just a few hundred yards away?

Mike

I would assume that armed police in the building would have a specific target which in most cases would stop the bullet, firing at a moving target is not so easy,even if you hit the drone the bullet would still have some force behind it and it would then randomly fall with the possibility of hitting something else.

Martin P

[martin perman 1Participant @martinperman1]

Posted by Watford on 21/12/2018 12:32:18:

Drone(s) not shot down because of the risk of a stray bullet, we learn. Who ever does these 'risk assessments' and then allows armed police with (presumably loaded) weapons to roam around the very crowded concourse just a few hundred yards away?

 

Mike

I would assume that armed police in the building would have a specific target which in most cases would stop the bullet, firing at a moving target is not so easy, even if you hit the drone the bullet would still have some force behind it and it would then randomly fall with the possibility of hitting something else.

Martin P

Edited By martin perman on 21/12/2018 12:41:41

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Watford on 21/12/2018 12:32:18:

Drone(s) not shot down because of the risk of a stray bullet, we learn. Who ever does these 'risk assessments' and then allows armed police with (presumably loaded) weapons to roam around the very crowded concourse just a few hundred yards away?

 

Mike

 

 

Yeah, these double standards make me laugh too. Like how wearing a seatbelt is law, except on a bus/tram, in which case the laws of physics don't apply, for some reason or another.

 

 

Martin.

Edited By blowlamp on 21/12/2018 12:48:15

[VicParticipant @vic]

Using firearms in an Airport doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. If shooting down a drone ever was to be considered an appropriate response I’d be far happier for the Army to do it rather than the police.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Hitting it with a shotgun would eliminate the possibility of stray shot, when I was a teenager and earned money grouse beating we used to get rained on by pellets fired by novice shooters until the gamekeepers took their guns away. Air resistance slows the pellets down fairly quickly as long as you are firing upwards and not straight at someone

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

While waiting to meet my son at gatwick a lady conducting a survey on armed police patrolling the airport public areas asked my opinion on the high profile armed patrols. Though I support them being there I feel it is a sad reflection of the way things are going. Having travelled Europe all my life encountering armed police is not unusual and not a problem, might be different in the USA though. The young may not realise that roaming pre Shengan europe was no more difficult than showing your UK passport and being waved on your way.

Mike

[DustyParticipant @dusty]

In response to Vic, shooting at a drone with the object of bringing it down is an almost impossible task with a rifle. Basic squaddies would not have the skill to hit it if it was not moving and they were within 200 metres, bearing in mind that it is likely to be 500 metres away at least, a specialist Army sniper might stand a chance as would a specialist Police sniper. As far as weapons being carried in Terminal buildings, if it ain't loaded it is just a sophisticated stick, you can hear it "hang on mate, stop shooting while I load my gun" really!

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Watford on 21/12/2018 12:32:18:

Drone(s) not shot down because of the risk of a stray bullet, we learn. Who ever does these 'risk assessments' and then allows armed police with (presumably loaded) weapons to roam around the very crowded concourse just a few hundred yards away?

 

Mike

That's the whole point of doing Risk Assessments. They take a bad situation and attempt to reduce the impact of an incident by planning ahead. Usually this works better than a bunch of confused ignoramuses milling about in an emergency.

At airports there's a possibility that terrorists might shoot randomly into the crowd or try and place explosives. I hope we all agree it would be better to mitigate that possibility than trust to luck when it happens!

There are many potential counter-measures, one of which is to complicate the terrorists problem by having a number of armed policemen patrolling the building. Like as not that's sufficient to put them off unless very determined. The counter-measure follows the principle of least harm, that is the risk posed to the public is reduced by armed policemen.

However having armed policemen is also risky – in a firefight he might miss and hit a bystander. That too has been subjected to a Risk Assessment. In consequence, airport policemen are equipped with bullet resistant vests and a carbine-like weapon that is far easier to aim than a pistol and can be brought into action faster. It fires a bullet designed not to pass through the human body. I don't know if it's the same bullet that used to be issued to US Air Marshals when hi-jacking was popular. An ordinary looking bullet with a thin shell containing a number of smallish shot that disintegrated on impact. It was designed to incapacitate people while being incapable of puncturing the aircraft. A Risk Assessment suggested that a special bullet would reduce the chance of crashing the aircraft as a side-effect.

Nothing about a Risk Assessment guarantees absolute safety, nor are they intended to. They don't stop people doing anything, rather they require operators to THINK before they act.

Only guessing of course, but I suspect chaps on the forum who dislike Risk Assessments have never had to deal with the consequences of an accident. It's a horrible and expensive process. You don't just send the widow a corsage and ask the nearest apprentice to have another go…

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 21/12/2018 15:00:04

[DustyParticipant @dusty]

The bullets used in weapons at airports, as far as I am aware is a standard 9mm. The risk assessment regarding hitting innocent bystanders is taken by the officer at the time, before a shot is fired. All authorised firearms officers are trained fully in this respect.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Once bullets start flying, I wouldn't trust anyone to be able to follow their training.

Seems like quite a lot of risk assements either aren't done, are done but poorly, or ignored. How else could Grenfell Tower come about and what about the other ~ 350 UK towers clad win a similar way?

I don't give blind faith to something just because it's been risk assessed – as per my previous comment, how come no seatbelts on buses & trams?

Martin.

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

We have little choice about where the terrorists choose to fight their battles but they must be challenged wherever it may be.

Mike

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 21/12/2018 10:08:02:

Posted by Mick Charity on 21/12/2018 05:31:54:

I'm putting my money on it being a protest by environMENTALists.

A possibility that some fruit loops have done it, but wouldn't they be more likely to be targeting Heathrow and its third runway?

Neil (Chartered Environmentalist – Chartered Engineers moan about all the other folk claiming to be 'engineers' so I am going to moan about being lumped with eco-morons!)

I had £10 on environMENTALists + a further £10 on them packing up & moving on to somewhere like Heathrow within a few hours.

There is still time yet for the latter, but I now feel they have gone deep underground. When the full details are known I think we might find that they really did put a lot of thought into how to evade capture, they'll be caught eventually as everyone makes mistakes, but it'll be a little one that leads the authorities to them.

It's worth thinking about what background experience they had.

P.S. Are you the Shuttered EnvironMENTAList who put in the report that claimed one of my developements would be detrimental to so much wildlife, yet 2yrs after completion an independant wildlife survey showed a marked increase ???

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Phil Stevenson on 21/12/2018 14:06:13:

We all like to think that terrorism doesn't work, but ……

Norn Oirelan is the classic example of how terrorism simply does not work.

All of that grief for what?

[Phil StevensonParticipant @philstevenson54758]

Posted by Mick Charity on 21/12/2018 16:10:58:

Posted by Phil Stevenson on 21/12/2018 14:06:13:

We all like to think that terrorism doesn't work, but ……

Norn Oirelan is the classic example of how terrorism simply does not work.

All of that grief for what?

Second biggest political party in NI (and significant influence on the biggest party by headcases on the other side), devolved government (when they stop playing with themselves), representation at Westminster (if and when SF ever decide to take their seats). I'm most definitely no apologist for any of them, but they will argue that little of this would have been achieved without years of mindless violence. Moderate politics has been snuffed out in Northern Ireland due to decades of terrorism. Not exactly terrorism, but female suffrage was brought about by significant civil disobedience, Gandhi had his moments (albeit peaceful) and Nelson Mandela is perhaps the best known example of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". There are many examples around the world where illegal violence against innocent civilians has resulted in great social change whether we like the smell of it or not. Sorry to have rattled on … Time for a Christmas sherry and a mince pie. Peace and love to everyone.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

Mods – any chance of the "No sex, politics or religion" embargo being activated. please?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, he/she/they are at it again apparently

A question for those interested – How many aircraft/people have been killed or injured by bird strikes and how many by drones/model aircraft?? Second question – How many times have airfields been closed by sightings of bird flocks in the vicinity??

Discuss – if you feel so inclined.

rgds

Bill

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Well, it's all kicking off again, although I feel this might be just a copycat or maybe even a false flag event, it certainly makes you wonder the exact nature of the equipment our armed forces recently put in place.

Perhaps it was the very latest £fentybillion dollar 'vapourware' missile system, hastily developed by BAE for just such an occasion?

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by Dusty on 21/12/2018 14:13:49:

In response to Vic, shooting at a drone with the object of bringing it down is an almost impossible task with a rifle. Basic squaddies would not have the skill to hit it if it was not moving and they were within 200 metres, bearing in mind that it is likely to be 500 metres away at least, a specialist Army sniper might stand a chance as would a specialist Police sniper. As far as weapons being carried in Terminal buildings, if it ain't loaded it is just a sophisticated stick, you can hear it "hang on mate, stop shooting while I load my gun" really!

Oh yes agreed, seeing police officers with firearms at Gatwick waiting for a drone to fly over was quite worrying. What I was suggesting though is that a trained army sniper would be a far better choice than a police officer if anyone was ever stupid enough to authorise it. The police shouldn’t handle firearms:

**LINK**

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

What's wrong with shotguns?

Brian

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Can we get a few things straight & clear up a little bit of possible misunderstanding.

There's a few chaps who have been called out to that airfield recently & not all of them are as stupid as the folk who cannot understand why they haven't simply let rip with Hollywood type firepower & blasted the damned drones into the middle of next week.

There are more fingers on my left hand than there are marksmen talented & skilled enough to hit one of these drones with zero danger. Whoever is controlling these drones has put them well out of the reach of anything other than what Hollywoods imagination can throw at them. If Bruce Willis were willing & available then I'm pretty sure they would've flown him in by now.

By now, there is some very high level thinkers on the case & they ain't stood on the runway kicking stones about & playing pocket billiards.

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

I should like to know what damage the drones are capable of inflicting from someone who actually knows, not presumes.

While hitting anything in a plane is not recommended; is hitting a plastic and light alloy drone worse than hitting say a swan or goose, or even sucking up some debris on landing?

I don't know and would like to have an idea of the actual risk assessment if anyone can help.

I am wondering if the danger is like that from mobile phones in petrol stations – totally illegal, not advisable, but no recorded dangerous incidents anywhere apparently!

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

There was a clip on the news yesterday showing simulation of a drone going straight into the leading edge of a wing did a lot of damage

Edited By JasonB on 21/12/2018 18:56:32

Edited By JasonB on 21/12/2018 18:57:59

[Author]

Posts