Gatwick Drone ‘Attack’

[Ron LadenParticipant @ronladen17547]

Posted by Cornish Jack on 22/12/2018 12:25:38:

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

Bill, the test, shows a hobby size drone hitting the leading edge of a wing at 238 mph and the damage caused. I dont know which or what "aerodynamic condition" or "aerodynamic effect" you are referring to but maybe you can explain how that changes things, it would be good to know.

 

Edited By Ron Laden on 22/12/2018 12:58:39

Edited By Ron Laden on 22/12/2018 13:25:27

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

I can't help seeing whoever is responsible for flying these drones so close to Gatwick as reckless and deeply stupid people, but there is another side to all of this that few people, least of all our government, seem willing to discuss. This other side is well articulated in a recent newspaper article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gatwick-drone-flights-delay-environmental-activists-a8694836.html

[peak4Participant @peak4]

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.

 

Well, this was a small phone battery, which was already pretty much discharged.
Anything solid entering an engine clearly isn't good, but having a battery do this inside a wing isn't ideal either.
Pardon Jane's mutterings at the end, I think she was a little surprised.
On the bright side she now charges her phone in slightly safer places.

Edited By peak4 on 22/12/2018 14:12:22

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I was hoping to watch your video, Bill … but it only appears to be a single image

MichaelG.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

Ron – the aerodynamic effect is what you would see as the difference between , for example, a 'frisbee' and a pebble. Apart from the distribution of mass, the airflow effect on a 'flying' object is entirely different from that on an object travelling on a trajectory. If you then combine it with the airflow distribution over the AIRBORNE aircraft (not on the ground, static) the situation is entirely different from that depicted in the demo clip. Additionally, the indicated damage, while appearing severe, is, I would suggest, not structurally or life-threatening.

Examples of aerodynamic interference are readily seen in air-to-air refuelling – getting the probe into the drogue requires a VERY large amount of trim change and that is at some considerable separation.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, the sheer difficulty of intentionally positioning the drone would tax the talents of the very best of remote controllers – for demo, try model aircraft formation flying.

rgds

Bill

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 14:34:33:

I was hoping to watch your video, Bill … but it only appears to be a single image

MichaelG.

That's strange, it works at my end, on Win 10, using Opera as a browser.
This is a direct link, from the address bar but I don't know if you need a Flickr account to view it.

Edit;

Right, tried it from a different browser, and it claims "adult content", "you need to be logged in to view"

Seems that I inadvertently uploaded it to Flickr as "Moderate" content, rather than "Safe"

Now changed and works OK from Edge Browser, also checked in Firefox, Chrome, Avast, and Pale Moon.

Is anyone else able to view it as a video?

Bill

Edited By peak4 on 22/12/2018 15:32:52

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Bill,

Whilst I happily defer to your wisdom in these matters concerning accidental collision … I don't think we can assume that the large drone at Gatwick only presented an accident risk.

Surely the authorities are obliged to consider the possibility of malicious intent.

MichaelG.

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by peak4 on 22/12/2018 15:24:34:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 14:34:33:

I was hoping to watch your video, Bill … but it only appears to be a single image

MichaelG.

That's strange, it works at my end, on Win 10, using Opera as a browser.
This is a direct link, from the address bar but I don't know if you need a Flickr account to view it.

Edit;

Right, tried it from a different browser, and it claims "adult content", "you need to be logged in to view"

Seems that I inadvertently uploaded it to Flickr as "Moderate" content, rather than "Safe"

Now changed and works OK from Edge Browser

Is anyone else able to view it as a video?

Bill

Edited By peak4 on 22/12/2018 15:28:42

Video works fine now using IOS 12 on an iPad.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by peak4 on 22/12/2018 15:24:34:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 14:34:33:

I was hoping to watch your video, Bill … but it only appears to be a single image

MichaelG.

That's strange, it works at my end …

.

All O.K. now, Bill … both the direct link and your original post are working.

Thanks for whatever you did

MichaelG.

[VicParticipant @vic]

How long can drones stay aloft? I was under the impression it wasn’t very long judging by the amount for a mates helicopter.

[RMAParticipant @rma]

I know from experience what a single seagull can do to the leading edge of a PA28, and that's only doing about 80knots on approach. An airliner is doing typically anything between 150 and 200 knots on climb out or approach, and a sizable drone hit in the right place could, in my opinion down the aircraft. I once had a Marsh Harrier right in front of the screen at about 2000ft which is a bit scary, but they are great aviators and this one did a roll out just in time!

I personally think the the government of the day can be criticised for not having the vision to see the potential danger with these things. There should have been larger 'no fly' zones, including altitude put in place when these things were first marketed. I know criminals break laws, but an astute government together with the CAA might have been a step ahead of these criminals, who knows.

I'm not anti drone, I think they have great value used correctly, but there is always those few who spoil things for the rest of us.

[Ron LadenParticipant @ronladen17547]

Posted by Cornish Jack on 22/12/2018 14:50:11:

Ron – the aerodynamic effect is what you would see as the difference between , for example, a 'frisbee' and a pebble. Apart from the distribution of mass, the airflow effect on a 'flying' object is entirely different from that on an object travelling on a trajectory. If you then combine it with the airflow distribution over the AIRBORNE aircraft (not on the ground, static) the situation is entirely different from that depicted in the demo clip. Additionally, the indicated damage, while appearing severe, is, I would suggest, not structurally or life-threatening.

Examples of aerodynamic interference are readily seen in air-to-air refuelling – getting the probe into the drogue requires a VERY large amount of trim change and that is at some considerable separation.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, the sheer difficulty of intentionally positioning the drone would tax the talents of the very best of remote controllers – for demo, try model aircraft formation flying.

rgds

Bill

Bill, I think I,m correct in saying that the drone did do some structural damage, didnt they say it put a dent in the wing spar and bent some pipes, what if one of those pipes burst and it was fuel or hydraulic..? Also it is surely not a case of an operator needing to position the drone or fly it into the aircraft, just to put it in hover in a fixed position over the airfield for aircraft to fly into is all that is needed for a potential disaster.

Anyway, nuff said, its Christmas.

Edited By Ron Laden on 22/12/2018 16:48:30

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

"Surely the authorities are obliged to consider the possibility of malicious intent."

Indeed so, Michael. That possibility, I would suggest, should be based on experience of such things, which, in spite of them being freely available for some years plus the demonstrations of evil intent among the bad guys, has resulted in just how many incidents? Exactly zero – not that that has any guarantees for the future but it does indicate that hiring a van is more 'productive'. Who needs some head-banger, faith-quoting loonies to cause chaos and disruption, when we can self-generate the Gatwick episode?

rgds

Bill

[peak4Participant @peak4]

And HERE we have a sensible measured press release from The DroneSafeRegister.

I can't see changing the law would make much difference to malicious intent; after all, murder's still illegal, but it doesn't stop someone being killed.

Bill

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 22/12/2018 10:52:39:

…

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

That is usually a bit of a political decision. If the suspect is dark complexioned with a foreign name, it's usually declared terrorism. Lily white homegrown types are usually counted as criminals.

The pair they have in custody at the moment don't appear to fit the terrorist bill. In fact, the bloke's boss says he was at work all day, so you have to wonder if the cops actually have the right couple? Or if they were some lame copycats nabbed after the main act had packed up and gone? Possibly a case of face, egg, impact for the authorities?

Like you say, it will be interesting to see how the exact charges play out in time.

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 22/12/2018 23:13:37

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Hopper on 22/12/2018 23:09:09:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 22/12/2018 10:52:39:

…

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

That is usually a bit of a political decision. If the suspect is dark complexioned with a foreign name, it's usually declared terrorism. Lily white homegrown types are usually counted as criminals.

The pair they have in custody at the moment don't appear to fit the terrorist bill. In fact, the bloke's boss says he was at work all day, so you have to wonder if the cops actually have the right couple? Or if they were some lame copycats nabbed after the main act had packed up and gone? Possibly a case of face, egg, impact for the authorities?

Like you say, it will be interesting to see how the exact charges play out in time.

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 22/12/2018 23:13:37

 

 

If they happen to have ever visited Salisbury Cathedral, then they've had it.

Edited By blowlamp on 22/12/2018 23:27:42

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by peak4 on 22/12/2018 22:31:10:

And HERE we have a sensible measured press release from The DroneSafeRegister.

I can't see changing the law would make much difference to malicious intent; after all, murder's still illegal, but it doesn't stop someone being killed.

Bill

.

I agree completely, Bill … and I never suggested changing the Law

In the [now evidently mistaken] belief that the actual culprits using the large Drone had been arrested, I merely expressed the hope that they would be prosecuted for Conspiracy … Their weapon of choice being almost totally irrelevant.

Dave [SoD] put me right regarding the arrests, but my opinion stands … when and if they catch the right people !!

MichaelG.

.

Ref. my posts at 10:08:48 and 11:12:25 this morning

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 23:33:09

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

With all the outrage this event has exposed, I'm sure we're equally appalled when drones are used to deliver actual bombs on people.

Edited By blowlamp on 22/12/2018 23:41:55

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 22/12/2018 23:26:41:

…………

I agree completely, Bill … and I never suggested changing the Law

…………

Not a dig at you Michael, or anyone else on here, more a reaction to some of the numpties in the press/parliament calling for all sorts of restrictions that would make no difference to anyone who chose to ignore them.

Bill

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

"These are not the drones you are looking for"

[colin wilkinsonParticipant @colinwilkinson75381]

About five years ago I was marshalling on the Isle of Man at the Manx Grand Prix and raised concerns about the probability of a drone being used to get video footage. The thought of a bike hitting one at 160 mph plus was enough to get an immediate ban on drone flying while the racing was in progress. Having seen the front of the works van after hitting a pheasant at 60 mph was evidence enough for me. Colin

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

Many years ago (1978) I used to fly r/c 'targets' in front of a line of M60 machine guns, a few 7.62 Bren's and a few AR -15's thrown into the mix. Admittedly they knew that the target was approaching which is more then the Gatwick operators knew.

About 1 in 800 rounds hit the a/c and when one did it usually caused little damage. A drone would be more susceptible to a hit though. **LINK**

I agree with Neil. Track down the idiots and then throw the book at them. Locked up for five years with 'Bubba' should sort out the idiots.

Maybe a bit cynical but a company selling anti-drone devices would see this as a windfall

* Danny M *

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

What a great link, Danny

Thanks for sharing that.

MichaelG.

[DrDaveParticipant @drdave]

Posted by blowlamp on 22/12/2018 23:41:12:

With all the outrage this event has exposed, I'm sure we're equally appalled when drones are used to deliver actual bombs on people.

Edited By blowlamp on 22/12/2018 23:41:55

Too late: IS has apparently been ordering drones over the internet, strapping explosives to them and using them as “poor man’s cruise missiles” in Iraq. They were used extensively during the recent battles to wrest control of the country back from them. Dave

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Is that thing still going on? I thought it had been sorted with the invasion of the country, overthrow of their government and the public execution of Saddam Hussein.

Martin.

[Author]

Posts