Gatwick Drone ‘Attack’

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

But who was the simulation from, and is it based on experiment or assumption? Sorry just seen your clip – it took a few moments to load

Thanks for the suggestion Jason, but the cynic in me has seen too many items on the news that are (with perfectly honest intent) designed to show the possible not the probably or likely.

One thought is that a drone might be sucked into an engine or hit a windscreen, but if heading towards the wing wouldn't it be carried over the wing – isn't that what an aerofoil is supposed to do? In this example there is no continuous airflow over the wing to take the drone over it and while this drone penetrated the bird replica appeared to damage a larger part of the wing structure. 

Thanks again,

Nick

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 21/12/2018 19:05:47

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 21/12/2018 19:10:22

[Neil LickfoldParticipant @neillickfold44316]

About the only way to safely bring down a drone is concentrated lasers. Some are pre programed now. Not controlled at all from the handset/ controller. Some use a GPS, or use the handset/controller for a reference position. There is no constant signal going to the drone, like a regular RC plane or the early controlled drones. So you cant just easily find the person controlling the drone, depending on the size and type of course. Yeah a drone into an aircraft does have the potential to do real damage. Firing projectiles at drones is almost useless , with a high certainty of what ever you are firing at the drone, also ending up where you dont want these pieces to land. Being as it is an airport, Lasers are the best solution, and should target the drone a safe distance from the runway as well as a known no fly zone. So drones near the vacinity should be automatically removed, and destroyed.

Governments have no clue for laws, as they themselves want and need drones in modern warfare.

Neil

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Nick if a drone was to come into contact with an aircraft wing it would cause substantial damage and contrary to the perception that airflow would direct it around the aerofoil section it would travel in a straight line into the aerofoil leading edge. Birds of all sizes frequently hit aircraft wings and when they do, although they are relatively soft and squishy compared to a drone, they penetrate for a fair distance into the wing structure. I have referred to wings as the area that would suffer as more often than not that is where birds come into contact with aircraft. I have removed the remains of birds from wing structure after they have penetrated and it is amazing how much damage they cause. Trust me when you are flying you don’t want to come into contact with birds, no matter what their size, and you definitely do not want to hit a solid object such as a drone.

Dave W

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

Dave – Thank you for the benefit of your direct experience.

Where I am still in a quandary is that while bird strikes are accepted as a risk of flying and aircraft are built to accept this, why the major shutdown for these drones. Are they so much more of a danger?

[martin perman 1Participant @martinperman1]

Even my meagre knowledge of aviation tells me that an aircraft on take off fully loaded with passengers, fuel and baggage can ill afford the loss of an engine, once they are cruising an engine loss can be covered by the other engine but it still keeps the pilots busy, trying to keep it straight for instance. Years ago I had a friend who worked on Vulcan engines and if a bird went into the intake it could do some very serious damage.

Martin P

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Nick, the size of the drone has been estimated at about four feet across, considerably more mass than birds that usually come into contact with aircraft, an object of that size has the potential to cause catastrophic damage compared to a bird strike which is usually survivable. Again I reiterate I would certainly not want to come into contact with an object such as a drone of that size and mass and I think that the reaction of the aviation authorities in relation to this incident has been undoubtedly the correct one.

Dave W

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by Vic on 21/12/2018 18:32:03:

 

The police shouldn’t handle firearms:

**LINK**

The people caught up in the rampage of Khalid Masood might disagree, as, respectfully, do I.

Edited By Bill Phinn on 21/12/2018 20:58:36

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

It's worth remembering that if this drone is able to stay aloft for a few hours then it likely has a substanial lipo on board and once damaged they burn with very corrosive fumes. I've seen r/c helis with twin 6S 5AH packs go up on crashing… entertaining if not one's own. Quite what that would to to a jet engine would be less amusing.

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

Two arrests have been made. Result!

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

Bird strike testing:-
**LINK**

**LINK**

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Apparently the Military deployed Israeli developed anti-drone technology. Some details here UK army deploys Rafael's Drone Dome at Gatwick airport

However the system purchased by the UK did not include lasers that can disable a drone in seconds:
"The Drone Dome system intercepts drones using laser beams that burn it in flight in a few seconds. The version sold to the UK lacks the laser beam interception option because the UK demanded that it be deployed quickly and the need to comply with regulation governing the use of lasers."

Clive

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

A few posters above – Please keep to the drone issue..

Neil

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

How quickly jokes appear about major incidents has always fascinated me. BBC Radio 4's 'Saturday Live' programme started today by claiming to be a 'Brexit Free Drone'

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

If they had shot down the drone, would the police have been able to carry out the arrests?

Neil

[Clive IndiaParticipant @cliveindia]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 20/12/2018 18:48:02:

They won't get shot down until they have located the perps.

You've said it several times now Neil – they aren't listening?

Does beg the question, if the army are there, what chance of finding a source in a real theatre of war if they are unable to get this bunch.

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 22/12/2018 09:41:49:

If they had shot down the drone, would the police have been able to carry out the arrests?

Neil

The drones themselve's will give plenty of forensics evidence, but just like your car . . . it wouldn't prove who was driving it at the time.

[Adam StevensonParticipant @adamstevenson91624]

Posted by Clive India on 22/12/2018 09:44:58:

Does beg the question, if the army are there, what chance of finding a source in a real theatre of war if they are unable to get this bunch.

They just find the position to within 50 meters and drop 500lb on it. I think people would get a bit upset if it took out half the neighbourhood.

As for the lasers you would think that the army would be excluded from the ban on having laser pointers within range of the airport. Altho you would need to make sure they was no way they could end up swiping across the terminal block and cooking few holiday makers before they get to the beach.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Chris Trice on 22/12/2018 02:47:40:

Two arrests have been made. Result!

.

Hopefully, therefore, someone will push prosecution for Conspiracy …

[quote]

Generally, to support conspiracy charges, the prosecution must prove that (1) a person entered an agreement, (2) with at least one other person, and (3) that at least one person to the agreement performed an act to further the agreement.

[/quote]

.

In my opinion, the 5years for the drone offence would not be enough.

MichaelG.

.

Ref. https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/conspiracy-to-commit-a-crime.htm

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 10:09:46

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

They should also be fined a considerable amount (possibly the value of their houses) as a small token towards apologising to the thousands of people who suffered financial loss and massive inconvenience.

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Rumours are that it was a boyfriend/girlfriend team of eco-warriors on . . . "BICYCLES"

Nice of them to 'buzz' the tower to let them know the drones were in their airspace, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt now would we

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

The pattern of the offence, repeated re-flights to extend the no-fly period, then a resumption which must have meen done if full awareness of the impacts. it's not a yob larking about but a planned disruption.

To me the big issue is whether or not it will be considered terrorism. This would obviously open the route to longer sentences.

"In the UK we define terrorism as a violent action that:

• Endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action
• Involves serious violence against a person
• Causes serious damage to property
• Creates a serious risk to the public’s health and safety
• Interferes with or seriously disrupts an electronic system"

You could argue it qualifies under 1 or 4, if the intent was to wilfully create a genuine risk to flying aircraft. This make take some effort to prove (e.g. did the drone go close to flight paths without warning whilst aircraft were in the area?)

There may not be much enthusiasm to class it as an act of terrorism as (a) it may encourage it to be sued as a tactic by terrorists and (b) the insurance industry will breathe a large sigh of relief as thousands of people are left without recourse to compensation.

Neil

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Before deciding punishments I'd like to know more about 'why?'. Careless is out, but gormless is still in the frame, as are commercial, criminal and political motives.

The law is most appropriate against criminals. We know exactly where we are with them. After that it gets complicated:

• Putting two people in jail for 5 years for stupidity is expensive. It costs the tax payer about £340,000 plus whatever costs ensue when they're released. Unemployables are also a burden on the state.
• If the crime is commercial, then it's likely that the 'pilots' are mere pawns. It will be difficult to prove who should go to jail.
• If political, the way in which the action is perceived makes a huge difference. For example, if the airport was closed as a protest against the possibility of a second referendum, then Brexit-fans might be supportive. On the other hand, if the airport was closed in support of a second referendum, then Brexit-fans would be furious. Depending on your point of view the perpetrator could be either a hero or a villain. It's too easy to make martyrs.

Although two people have been arrested, it's possible that they are copy-cats (a sub-species of gormless). First reports were of 4 foot drones, whereas these twerps had a motorbike were caught stuffing two drones into a bag – that sounds more like toys.

We need more facts…

Dave

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Posted by pgk pgk on 21/12/2018 21:23:31:

It's worth remembering that if this drone is able to stay aloft for a few hours then it likely has a substanial lipo on board and once damaged they burn with very corrosive fumes. I've seen r/c helis with twin 6S 5AH packs go up on crashing… entertaining if not one's own. Quite what that would to to a jet engine would be less amusing.

Aligning that to electric vehicles **LINK**

and **LINK**

or even **LINK**

Regards

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 22/12/2018 11:00:14:

Although two people have been arrested, it's possible that they are copy-cats (a sub-species of gormless). First reports were of 4 foot drones, whereas these twerps had a motorbike were caught stuffing two drones into a bag – that sounds more like toys.

We need more facts…

.

Duly noted, Dave

I had not seen that reporting when I posted

MichaelG.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

I have to disagree with the suggestions that … a. a drone strike is likely or

b. that the damage shown in the clip previously has much validity.

The clip shows an object (drone?) being propelled at 200 mph at a static wing. The drone is not IN AERODYNAMIC condition and the wing is STATIC (no aerodynamic effect). That would, possibly, replicate a solid object impact result but totally ignores the airflow effects of BOTH drone and aircraft wing. It does not equate with a bird strike. IF and it is an ENORMOUS IF, any drone operator could manoeuvre the drone into aircraft proximity, the likelihood of a strike is minimal. Birds represent a hazard only because of their numbers and, therefore, the large total area presented. I would suggest that the whole episode response has been totally disproportionate and, unfortunately, typical of what has become the litigious 'snowflake' society!

rgds

Bill

[Author]

Posts