BS: Drones

Subject: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 11:52 AM

Gatwick airport was completely disrupted and all flights cancelled yesterday because of one of those drones being flown beside the runway.
It seemed to take the Police forever to decide exactly what to do (if anything) and eventually the Ministry of Defence was called in to assist.
They still haven't caught the drone-controller, and the airport has re-opened after the entire airspace had been closed and no end of people had to lie on the floor all night, not knowing whether their flights would be re-instated.
How to other countries manage/control drone ownership, and is there not some sort of technology which can intercept, disable/destroy drones being flown around airports?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Thompson
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 11:58 AM

Two drones in Gatwick, the news says. The Dutch train eagles to hunt them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:13 PM

I confess that I'm suffering from drone envy. I would love to have a small drone with a good camera. I know they can be a nuisance, but there must be a way to allow people to use them wisely while keeping the crazies under control.
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Rain Dog
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:16 PM

"I know they can be a nuisance, but there must be a way to allow people to use them wisely while keeping the crazies under control."

Look how well that method works down here in the BS section

Merry Christmas to you all

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:19 PM

Exactly Joe. But the trouble is they can be dangerous.
For example, drop onto a child or fly into someone's face. A drone could presumably break a window or distract drivers. There seem to be some enormous ones available.

I watched a short programme last night about how a drone can pierce the fuselage of an aircraft, or even rupture the fuel tanks located in the wings.

I'm also wondering if there was more to this than they're actually telling us. Terrorists could after all have explosives mounted on the blooming things.
I know they sound fun and can understand the attraction, but I don't think they should be allowed to be sold.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:27 PM

Terrorists could after all have explosives mounted on the blooming things

Well, yes, they could, but significantly disrupting the ability of a country to get goods into and out of the country, as well as people, has a far bigger effect than a conventional bomb.


If it was not a terrorist thing, expect them to be thinking "Now, there's an idea ...."

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:35 PM

When drones were first on sale, I heard of several prisons where inmates were sent drugs, mobile phones and other banned items attached to drones which flew over the perimeter fences.
But I think they've solved that problem now with some sort of technology, blocking them or deflecting them?

My husband says the same as you DMcG, that all kinds of nefarious characters will be working out how to implement these things to cause trouble for security, the economy and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:48 PM

I've sometimes toyed with a getting a small Arducopter, Joe. Something that could fly its own "missions".

--
I don't know about banning them. There is open source control software including autopilots, parts readily available and probably 3d printing plans, etc. ...he, here's some

You'd probably inconvenience a lot of (I'd assume) mostly harmless casual users but I doubt you would be stopping anyone determined to disrupt?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: meself
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 01:23 PM

There's a sort of 'gun' that apparently is in use in some Canadian airports that can jam & even take over the electronic/radio/whatever signal to the drone, put it out of commission, and trace the source. Not cheap - $70,000 - but - d'ya think it might be worth it?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 01:32 PM

Considering the immense disruption and costs meself, I think it might be an idea for airports to consider investing in this 'gun'.

I've just seen on the News that Gatwick has shut down again after yet another drone sighting.
I'm surprised some idiots aren't trying this on at Heathrow. I suppose it's only a matter of time.

In our village we have a lovely chap who has a wildlife photography business. He takes beautiful photos of our Norfolk countryside and the creatures to be found there, and sells them to magazines and for mounting as wall art etc. He uses a drone I believe to get a view of the series of small lakes and the river Wensum from above. But Norwich Airport isn't far off, plus our Air Ambulance is frequently flying overhead to some rural accident. Could be a bit dodgy...

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 01:54 PM

Mrs Backwoodsperson bought me a DJI drone a couple of Christmases ago, which has a high-definition camera. I haven't flown it a huge amount - time is a factor and I'm generally busy with a lot of other things - but I was astonished to find, when I got the aircraft, that there is no official register of owners, no requirement to undertake training in the operation and use of drones, nothing. There are rules about flight height, flying in restricted areas such as airports yadda yadda, but very little in the way of enforcement.

As an owner, I'm absolutely in favour of official registration, training, and licensing of drone-operators. It just seems to make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: bobad
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 02:03 PM

From the Times of Israel

The British military reportedly used an Israeli anti-drone system to ground an unmanned aerial vehicle that shuttered the airfield at London’s Gatwick Airport for over 36 hours beginning Thursday, stranding tens of thousands of passengers.

The Daily Mail reported that the British Army used the Israeli-made “Drone Dome” to bring down the UAV after police failed for hours to do so with a commercial anti-drone system.

Six of the systems, which were developed by Israeli defense firm Rafael, were sold to the UK Ministry of Defense in August in an estimated $20 million deal, according to Israel’s Globes financial daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mossback
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 02:18 PM

You'd probably inconvenience a lot of (I'd assume) mostly harmless casual users but I doubt you would be stopping anyone determined to disrupt?

Now where have I heard that argument before................???

Oh yes, the NRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 02:50 PM

There are drones, and then there are DRONES. The first DRONE I ever saw was in Bern, Switzerland, in the summer of 2016. I admit that it was big, and a bit scary. It was about the size of a garbage can lid, and looked like it must weigh a hundred pounds. There were two guys carrying it, once they brought it down.

I saw several drones above Manger Square in Bethlehem (Palestine) for the Christmas tree lighting in December, 2017. These drones were much smaller and lighter, maybe the size of a Frisbee and no more than five pounds in weight. Even though they were in a place with a high potential for terrorism, they seemed pretty safe. But could I get good photos with a five-pound drone?

Maybe ten years ago, my stepson was interested in flying styrofoam electric airplanes - they were called "park flyers." I got one myself, and had a lot of fun with it. They were a bit difficult to control, but I got the hang of it after awhile. I would think that drones would be easier to control than a plane, since drones can hover.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM

Well Joe, I guess there is the advantage that you might be able to pause for thought with something that hovers but I don’t think the fact that something can hover means its easy to fly.

I think concentric rotor helicopters are naturally stable and easy to fly but I’m short of the skills needed just to keep a “stunt” heli in the air.

I’d imagine that a drone built for photography would aim for the maximum stability and ease of flight (which I’d think would be assisted by the electronics) though.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 03:15 PM

Thinking a bit more, Joe. I have a Nano QX micro quad copter - not flown in a couple of years. That one has tow modes of flight built in. I could cope with “safe mode” fairly easily but not the “agility mode”.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 02:57 AM

Hi, Jon - not being particularly agile myself, I think I'd choose "safe mode." The airplanes moved in a straight line and would get away from me if I lost my mental focus. I'm glad my plane was made of Styrofoam (polystyrene).
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 04:11 AM

This morning I see that Police have arrested two people (a man and a woman) in connection with this.
I suggest, if found guilty, they be chained to the front door of the airport with a large printed sign explaining what they have done.
And a large crate of eggs and tomatoes nearby, for people to chuck at them.
(as in the Middle Ages)
But I expect they'll merely get a few hours Community Service and a slap on the wrist.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 04:57 AM

Those guilty of financial crimes are normally given quite heavy custodial sentences. I wonder how many millions shutting Gatwick cost?
The crime goes way beyond creating a public nuisance.How many lives were put at risk.
    I find it surprising there are no preventative measures in place.
Drones are capable of carrying far more than a camera.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 05:19 AM

A minor point and unrelated to the drones, but tomatoes, in the Middle Ages? Probably not.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 06:02 AM

Quite right Jos. Tomatoes hadn't been 'invented' then! I expect they would have chucked lumps of...er... ('Now wash your hands')

Iains is right too. Lives have been put in danger. An entire aircraft fully fuelled-up, with 200 or more passengers plus crew would have gone up like a torch, killing everyone (and perhaps people on the ground as well, depending on where it fell)

I reckon this stupid and irresponsible caper must have cost literally millions. Not to mention the distressed passengers, some with young families, having to hang around for hours and hours, sleeping on the floor.
I felt so sorry for one lady they interviewed, who had been sitting upright all night in an uncomfortable chair. She had terminal, fourth-stage cancer which had spread to her bones, and she was very distressed. Poor soul.

A fully effective technological means of disabling these drones should immediately be put in place around all airports.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 06:18 AM

The government has been sitting on its hands for years over this. Drones are not exactly a new thing. The US used them to drop bombs on Pakistan years ago, for example. The Gatwick incident was a dead cert to happen and it seems that no plan was in place to counter such an attack. You can't tell me that the technology doesn't exist to stop idiots from flying their flimsy toys near aeroplanes. I'll tell you summat. We've got schools begging parents for money, hospital waiting lists rocketing, A&E departments unable to cope, food bank dumps in every supermarket in the fifth biggest economy in the world, homelessness going through the roof as people die in the cold just outside Parliament, and most of the roads round here are full of last winter's potholes still. You never see a copper round here these days either. I mean, what sort of a bloody country is this when ordinary citizens' security and comfort and safety are ignored while our alleged leaders turn parliament into a pantomime as they "discuss" the disaster they instigated that is about to befall us? What do we pay these clowns for?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 06:33 AM

But, but, but...we're 'Taking Are Cuntry Back', so that the Rothermeres, The Murdochs, the Barclay bros., and Jacob ("Call Me Jake") Rich-Mong and his ilk, are free to continue avoiding and evading paying their taxes here...

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: banjoman
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 07:00 AM

Surely a sharpshooter with a rifle could bring one of these things down. If he could spot it first

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 07:28 AM

Airports like Gatwick, Heathrow, are in densely populated areas. What goes up must come down. Would you like people firing rifles into the air near your home? Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 09:09 AM

You can't shoot them down, you can't net them. Too dangerous. But you can bet your life that there's technology that won't let them fly where we don't want them flying and/or that can take over the controlling of them. And no, you can't have your bloody ball back. I wouldn't mind betting that installing proper precautions at every airport in the land would cost less than yesterday cost the airlines, the airport and the poor buggers stuck in them. A national disgrace it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 09:18 AM

It was indeed a disgrace Steve. I expect they're setting up the protective technology as we speak. But it's long overdue.

And re-opening Gatwick doesn't mean all flights are instantly available. Most of the aircraft are parked at other airports having been diverted. It will probably be several days before normal service is resumed.

I would be very uneasy even just sitting in a park if a blooming drone was hovering. The clot could lose control and it might descend on my head, or onto a baby in a pram. Or go straight through the windscreen of a car. It could zoom into someone's face and blind them. It could terrify a herd of dairy cows or horses.

No. Ban them entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 10:06 AM

You're a hard woman, Sen! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 10:17 AM

No. Ban them entirely.

Cars can cause equally horrific injuries and more. Let's ban them while we're at it.

Not all drones are big boys' toys. There are many practical applications such as surveying, enabling the emergency services to search inaccessible area, farmers checking crops, etc. Licencing and mandatory training/testing with compulsory third party insurance is the way to go. The drones should also have display a registration number as with motor vehicles.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Will Fly
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 10:29 AM

The drones were stopped by the military using specialist equipment - Israeli in origin, I do believe - which uses radar to take control of the drone and probably track the origin of the controlling signal.

I've always been surprised that such things aren't licensed - perhaps they will be from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 11:06 AM

Cars are indeed dangerous Doug. But, as you suggest for drone-owners, one needs to take a test, have licencing and there are rules of the road to be obeyed. Each car is registered and identifiable.
It is illegal to carry a knife in public, but one can zoom a large drone overhead with impunity.

Backwoodsman, you have no idea just how hard I can be. My pupils were absolutely terrified of me I can tell you. And as for my poor little husband, he cowers in fear most of the time.

Heh heh. If only...   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 12:02 PM

A man and a woman arrested? They weren't called Stephen Barclay and Theresa May were they? The lengths some people will go to to divert attention from their ineptitude.I

Doug, you can't fly cars above the runway at Gatport Airwick.

Steve, Steve, Steve! Far more important. Went to our local Italian eatery last night and they have changed their house red. An absolutely lovely Nero d'Avolo. Can't remember the name but at £4.50 for a 250ml glass it is dearer than Mozzers but good value in a restaurant.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 12:23 PM

but tomatoes, in the Middle Ages? Probably not.

Pretty hard tomatoes and probably limestone in colour were not uncommon, in those days. And you couln't eat them neither. Blinded people were not uncommon either.


The problem with downing the drones is that they use Wifi frequencies. Downing the drones with radio tansmissions, also downs the networks. So no more Wifi connections for business use in future for airports systems then?

Culprits are 60 and 54 apparently. It was that they taunted the authorities that tells you - as GBS said "Older and wiser is not bound to not happen. Young fools become old fools."

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 12:25 PM

They said on the radio this morning that drones are sold with a device already installed that prevents them flying too close to airports; it causes them to land or to fly back to the person controlling them. They said that this must have been disabled by the people using the drones at Gatwick.

Having a law that makes all drones have a registration number would be as effective as the law that says all cars must have a visible registration number - it doesn't stop criminals using false or cloned number plates in order not to be identifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 12:47 PM

Now, just a thought but if you had a UAV fly the length of the runway with jamming transmissions aimed in front of it. It would make the runway safe against single drone incidents. But a detected drone would still be a disruption because it would have to be removed.

The drone incident was an incident waiting to happen. We have had drones fall out of the sky onto babies in prams already. And FWIW there are laws already in place regarding photography pointing at a building that is not yours.

As for the miscreants - it needs a custodial sentence of some import to warn other idiots. It won't stop the determined though. Shops that sell don't offer advice on insurance, and insurance companies don't understand either, it needs an incident to raise the profile of the problems. Politicians are too busy playing politics, right now. And a few of them need custodial sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 01:29 PM

From: Jos - PM
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 12:25 PM
They said on the radio this morning that drones are sold with a device already installed that prevents them flying too close to airports; it causes them to land or to fly back to the person controlling them. They said that this must have been disabled by the people using the drones at Gatwick.

Ok. so that (if enforced) takes care of drones sold to the public. What about drones created by members of the public, with computerised controls available online, which have not been fitted with this device?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 01:42 PM

I'm wondering if some terrorists could use drones around Westminster, landing on the roofs of various government buildings and causing havoc.
I suppose explosives could be attached and detonated from afar.
Any public building could be attacked in this way.
One surely can't have objects being flown anywhere at all by any evil-minded agent.
I've also read that one can have a drone already programmed, with no need to guide it remotely. A flying bomb in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 01:53 PM

Steve Shaw says, I'll tell you summat. We've got schools begging parents for money, hospital waiting lists rocketing, A&E departments unable to cope, food bank dumps in every supermarket in the fifth biggest economy in the world, homelessness going through the roof as people die in the cold just outside Parliament, and most of the roads round here are full of last winter's potholes still. You never see a copper round here these days either. I mean, what sort of a bloody country is this when ordinary citizens' security and comfort and safety are ignored while our alleged leaders turn parliament into a pantomime as they "discuss" the disaster they instigated that is about to befall us? What do we pay these clowns for?

Gee, that sounds like California. Here's an article titled California now world’s 5th largest economy, surpassing UK

California has about half the population of the UK, and is about half again the size of the UK land mass. I see lots of drones in the retail stores of California, but very few in the air. Lots of potholes, though.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 05:19 PM

"Ok. so that (if enforced) takes care of drones sold to the public. What about drones created by members of the public, with computerised controls available online, which have not been fitted with this device?"

Nigel, the way I’d understood the (Daily Mail?) article I read was that the first system tried by the police failed as it only really dealt with “standard” drones from the largest maker. I believe the Israeli system was able to overcome this?

My guess it that wherever there is a “drone/base” communication, there would be some way of blocking that?

I’m more interested in drones that can follow a flight path autonomously. Perhaps I’m missing something but it looks to me as if one, even with consumer grade stuff, could say program a drone to say make a short flight, circle round a target area a few times to get attention and return to base without the need for any communication between drone and base. I guess that if this method is possible, it would render any jamming technology useless? Or perhaps they could knock out the GPS signals it would need?


This board available in the UK for about £130 (plus you’d need at least GPS) seems quite capable to me?

---
On a different tack. Any thoughts on the likes of Amazon possibly having large fleets of drones big enough to carry parcels in the sky? And if there are so many disabling techniques including netting, around, could we have "drone piracy"?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 05:45 PM

Not to downgrade in any way the seriousness of this thread, but can I just say, I love drones! No' the type you're talking about, but what I can do with my bass notes on my box! And there have been several positive sightings of drones at Inverness airport, if you happen to follow Facebook, usually belonging to some teuchter's set o' pipes!
Sorry,I'll get ma plaidie!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:28 AM

in my experience GPS that is commercially available is barely accurate enough to taunt at the control tower window. The people they have arrested have alibis from employer and ex wifey. Age of children not specified! The plot thickens........


Lots of potholes, though.

I was told that California had fixed them, when I told the story of Reaganomics leading to road problems to on American. Maybe his story was history (and full of holes)...........




I'll get my high viz jacket

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:33 AM

The Crown Prosecution Service will require a cast-iron case if the couple are to go to Court. If the alibi is false, the employer will be prosecuted too and go to jail with the droners.

There were a couple of Ghanaian men on the TV who had intended to go to their brother's wedding, and had missed it. This is very serious for Africans, to miss a major family event like that.

And the poor terminally ill woman had wanted to see her family for the last time before she died. I found that terribly sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:46 AM

I don't believe in banning things. Drones have their place. Collective punishment is wrong. My sense of injustice in that department was fired up in 1967 when our whole class of 30 was kept in detention until 5.30 because no-one would own up to the theft of a doorknob. All I know is that it bloody well wasn't me. Bloody priest. Had I found the doorknob I know where I'd have shoved it.

Dave, the Morrisons Nero d'Avola has been two for a tenner for a while. Excellent! By the time you read this I'll be in that hellhole collecting my Kelly Bronze turkeys. I'll need a lie down after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:59 AM

Steve! We're waiting for you at the Mudcat Tavern! Mmario has suggested you oversee the catering as you sound like an excellent chef. And please bring some of those turkeys for everyone to taste. See you there I hope!
PS Agree about the doorknob.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 06:46 AM

Arrff, arrff, arrff... :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 07:01 AM

in my experience GPS that is commercially available is barely accurate enough to taunt at the control tower window.

Depending on what equipment is used and the order of accuracy required the precision of GPS equipment can be very high. A total station is accurate within 3mm. Static and RTK techniques are the most accurate forms of GPS. With high order static techniques, relative positions of a few millimetres are possible over hundreds of kilometres.
   A mobile phone has an accuracy to 5-8 meters. It can be combined with an external Bluetooth GPS receiver and get accuracy down to the 2-3 meter range

I am sure governments retain the ability to degrade the accuracy should the need arise. I assume that would also require the cellphone towers to be taken out as well, as their positions are known and triangulation would give a general location down to several typical city blocks. (I suspect that this is an inaccuracy deliberately put out by the authorities, but I do not have the knowledge to dispute it)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 09:16 AM

It is being reported that the two prime suspects have been released.
The fiasco is not finished yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 03:56 PM

I enjoyed mince pies with custard for pudding today!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 03:59 PM

Twat. It's either clotted cream or it's nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 04:29 PM

The police are now saying the drones may have been imaginary. One crashed one was found early on, but there is no photographic record of them: only people reporting that they'd seen them.

Massive economic disruption caused by panic about imaginary enemies? That couldn't possibly happen in Britain, could it?

(Someone posted a video to FB of a football match in Argentina where one of the spectators brought down a drone with a well-aimed toilet roll. Just think, if Argentina had had toilet paper in the 1980s the Malvinas would be theirs).