Gatwick Drone ‘Attack’

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, I think the trouble with this drone issue is the same old problem, where, the authorities are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. What if Gatwick just ignored the possibility of these sightings and the police just thought they had a bit of paranoia believing that they were a threat. So, Gatwick just carried flying out passengers and then the unthinkable happened regardless of all the technical issues that say it would be highly unlikely that such a drone could bring down an aeroplane. I think the public outcry would be enormous if it did happen and the authorities just ignored the sightings out of hand.

Regards Nick.

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

So here is the typical knee-jerk reaction from our local muppets based on the 'facts' **LINK**

* Danny M *

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Thanks Jason,

I have noticed. I'm afraid Christmas is keeping me busy at the moment, please play nicely while we aren't looking

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Martin of Wick on 23/12/2018 19:48:53:

…Their release came as Sussex Police said they were relying on eye witnesses and there may have been no "genuine drone activity in the first place".

More brilliant reporting – the said Occifer was referring to reports from the public of drones in the area around the airport i.e. they have no verified reports of the drones leaving or returning to their operators (which probably means they flew high).

Neil

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Posted by JasonB on 24/12/2018 14:00:21:

Posted by Phil Stevenson on 24/12/2018 09:59:41:

……………………..without comment from the mods (no sex, yet). Does that mean I can start to talk about the success or otherwise of terrorism again?

I have deleted a few posts without comment and will continue to do so.

Do not mention the sex

I did but I think i got away with it

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

The farce continues: **LINK**

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714

MichaelG.

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

I just think it seem weird that with all the technology they cannot jam the 2.4 channel for just enough seconds to crash the drone. I know that modern transmitters (like my Futaba) change frequencies within the bandwidth quickly but surely they can beat that. Or is it a case that doing so may disrupt some other important systems operating on the same frequency?

What really concerns me is the backlash on sensible model fliers

our club operates a quarter of a mile from a private field (Stowe Maries war museum) where there can be a couple of air displays a year & regular private flights (biplanes etc) during the week. Although the airfield operators have agreed that the planes will not fly over our model flying site they sometimes do ( probably visitors) . If we cannot get our models down in time they can get close. That being said we always look out for them & if a plane strays close we down all models until safe to fly.

If someone suddenly decided that a practice that has worked Ok for the last 8 years is no longer safe then we would loose our flying field (for which we have local authority planning permission)

This drone incident is something that bone fide modelers can do without

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Sam Longley 1 on 24/12/2018 15:48:29:

I just think it seem weird that with all the technology they cannot jam the 2.4 channel for just enough seconds to crash the drone. I know that modern transmitters (like my Futaba) change frequencies within the bandwidth quickly but surely they can beat that. Or is it a case that doing so may disrupt some other important systems operating on the same frequency?

.

I think it more likely that by simply crashing the drone they would lose any chance of apprehending the perpetrators.

MichaelG.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Any decent drone will be pre-programmed on loss of signal either to hold position or to return to preset coordinates. Even with my r/c helis I had them set so loss of signal would default servos to a slow descent.

I'd guess that jamming would have other concerns since an awful lot of stuff now runs at 2.4GHz bluetooth, car alarms etc. I thnk they're also using 5.8GHz on r/c too now.

pgk

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

I think we must all agree that it can only be a group of Morons who would play with anything in the flight path of an Airport. As said, if a plane comes down then expect draconian measures to counteract the situation. Regards shooting down these things, no automatic fire as any projectile fall can seriously injure or kill anyone hit up to 5 miles away. Many people (Innocent) are killed by the Arab habit of letting off weapon fire into the air. As the Drones seem to fly above 300 mtrs then a shotgun is no use, I have shot in comps. where a plastic spinner is let out of a box and flies off at a tangent, hard to hit I can tell you. True, the operator is who they want not the Drone. This may require some vigilance by the public or services operating the detection gear. Like all things there is always someone who abuses the priviledge to the detriment of everybody else. Lets hope they do not fit Lasers to them!

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Bit of technical detail here. The UK ordered six 'Drone Domes' from Israel in August, so brand-new equipment,

Here's what it consists of:

RAFAEL’s Drone Dome integrates four RPS-42 pMHR S-band multimission 90° hemispheric radars from RADA, and provides early warning and target tracks at ranges of 5 to 3 km. The MEOS electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) surveillance sensor from Controp, and Netline’s NetSense Wideband RF detection sensors provide target identification. Target engagement by ‘soft kill’ is performed with electronic jamming, using the C-Guard RD jammer, system integration, command, and control. The system also uses a high power laser effector for ‘hard kill’, but, according to RAFAEL, such effectors were not included in the system destined to Great Britain.

Read all about the C-Guard Jammer.

This is the sort of present I want to get in my stocking this year! After all I have been a good boy, honest.

Dave

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

Posted by Sam Longley 1 on 24/12/2018 15:48:29:

I just think it seem weird that with all the technology they cannot jam the 2.4 channel for just enough seconds to crash the drone. I know that modern transmitters (like my Futaba) change frequencies within the bandwidth quickly but surely they can beat that. Or is it a case that doing so may disrupt some other important systems operating on the same frequency?

A pre-programmed flight such as this one does not rely on the r/c transmitter, just a link to GPS satellites **LINK**

The chase drone just had the Litchi co-ords offset by ten feet. An impressive flight but probably quite illegal where I live.

In fact one could theoretically fly the Gatwick mission from Australia given a Google map of the area and somebody to place the drone for take-off.

Scary but true,

* Danny M *

[Trevor Crossman 1Participant @trevorcrossman1]

Posted by Danny M2Z on 24/12/2018 16:39:16:

A pre-programmed flight such as this one does not rely on the r/c transmitter, just a link to GPS satellites **LINK**

The chase drone just had the Litchi co-ords offset by ten feet. An impressive flight but probably quite illegal where I live.

In fact one could theoretically fly the Gatwick mission from Australia given a Google map of the area and somebody to place the drone for take-off.

Scary but true,

* Danny M *

On that note, I remember that several, maybe 10, years ago a radio control modeler in New Zealand built a large model cruise missile using components generally available in the retail market and it worked perfectly well,( apart from no explosions of course!)and so it wasn't surprising that his website was taken down as soon as this became known to his national authorities!

Trevor

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 24/12/2018 15:56:29:

Posted by Sam Longley 1 on 24/12/2018 15:48:29:

I just think it seem weird that with all the technology they cannot jam the 2.4 channel for just enough seconds to crash the drone. I know that modern transmitters (like my Futaba) change frequencies within the bandwidth quickly but surely they can beat that. Or is it a case that doing so may disrupt some other important systems operating on the same frequency?

.

I think it more likely that by simply crashing the drone they would lose any chance of apprehending the perpetrators.

MichaelG.

Fair comment Michael, but it seems to me that they have not caught the perpetrators any way. Plus they have caused misery to thousands. Surely upsetting the signal would have saved massive costs as well.

The comment has been made that if a drone looses its signal it will fly back to a pre determined position. Yes they do that in our club. It is one of the tricks we perform, Have a cup of coffee whilst the drone does circuits, then as it runs out of power it senses it & comes home & hovers 4 ft above the ground waiting to be collected. So thinking that through, a helicopter sights the drone. Signal gets jammed & the drone says hey I am going back to base — & guess what — there is an operator standing there for all to see.

Surely that is not beyond the ability of someone with a bit of techy experience.

As for a few car alarms going off – well – what is worse? Put yourself in the position of a traveler & one of a car owner. Who is inconvenienced the most?

 

 

Edited By Sam Longley 1 on 24/12/2018 17:21:44

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

It has been pointed out here several times that some drones can be pre-programmed to fly a set course using GPS for guidance with no radio link. Also, with suitable modules fitted they can use cellular for comms as an alternative to anything at 2.4 or 5.8 GHz. The combination makes such attacks by a reasonably determined individual or group rather hard to stop.

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

There are all sorts of electronic counter measures (ECM) that could be brought in and utilised & they will all ultimately fail the first question anyone with an ounce of sense is going to ask.

"What else will they affect"?

What works well on the battlefield/warzone does not necessarily translate to a busy civilian airport in a densely populated area. That is unless Bruce Wilis is brought in to aim his shoulder mounted & highly focused Turboencabulator MkIV at the drones which then spontaneously burst into flames, crashing to the ground conveniently at his feet.

There isn't ANYBODY in the chain of command who is going to risk the possible side effects.

Expect a lot more of these type of events in the near future. Major disruption has been caused that has gained massive publicity for very little £cost & seemingly very little risk, and it seems that nobody yet has an antidote.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

An interesting 'clarification' by Sussex Police Media Centre: **LINK**

https://mediacentre.sussex.police.uk/news/active-investigation-of-67-sightings-of-drone-activity-at-gatwick-airport-343084

MichaelG.

.

Ref. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/24/uk-police-drone-at-gatwick-airport-suspects-released.html

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 24/12/2018 20:19:53

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

The obvious way to do it is control it with GPS and an anonymous phone using 4G to pick up commands on an anonymous website where the controller sends them via anonymous FTP/proxy.

As it wouldn't be instantaneous control but you could have a library of pre-programmed commands.

I don't know quite how to do this but I bet it's not hard.

Neil

[Neil LickfoldParticipant @neillickfold44316]

My friends fishing drone, can take a 1Kg Payload, fly 500m off shore at 20m atlitude, then drops the baited hook set, and fly's back and lands on the 2mx2m blanket that it took off from. It can be programed to have a higher return path, or the same height return path.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

According to the BBC

Mr Wallace said: ""However, I can say that we are able to now deploy detection systems throughout the UK to combat this threat."

Yes.. he's been to Specsavers.

Next week he's going to learn about split infinitives.

pgk

[peter smith 5Participant @petersmith5]

No problem. It's just Amazon making a delivery.

Pete

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Got one from Santa this Christmas. Really good fun to play with and the camera is pretty good as well.

Martin.

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Looks like the airports are spending big bucks on anti drone tech. Could the Gatwick perpetrator be a salesman for anti drone tech.?

Mike

[Joseph Noci 1Participant @josephnoci1]

And then there is this theory – Does seem quite credible – most of the public dronesightings 'were' in fact Police drones trying to chase and find hackers who had hacked the Gatwick Flight Controller systems, thereby preventing safe management of flights …'Nothing' to do with drones being the reason for flights grounded..

**LINK**

Joe

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Mike Poole on 04/01/2019 10:54:01:

Looks like the airports are spending big bucks on anti drone tech. Could the Gatwick perpetrator be a salesman for anti drone tech.?

Mike

Wouldn't be the first time! Charles Algernon Parsons arrived uninvited at the 1897 Spithead Navy Review and ran rings around the Royal Navy in the Turbinia. The review being held in celebration of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee at the peak of British Naval power ensured maximum publicity. Having made his point Parsons went on to commercial success.

Parsons was respectable in comparison with Sir Basil Zarahoff GCB, GBE. At a time when submarines were still being developed and were highly unreliable, Sir Basil famously sold one to Greece, then – on the basis of the new Greek threat thus caused, he sold two more to Turkey, before moving on to Russia and selling them two to protect the Black Sea against the Turks. The submarines weren't 'fit for purpose'; unstable when submerged and no-one ever got coal burning boilers to work satisfactorily underwater. This wasn't an isolated incident: bribery, sabotage, bigamy, seduction, arms trafficking, destabilising governments, he did it all.

Dave

[Author]

Posts