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).

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 03:39 AM

Does it make any sense that the police are in charge of airbourne threats around a major airport? Days of chaos and no video evidence?

Wargaming a little contretemps in preparation for hard brexit perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 04:05 AM

An interesting read on drones and stopping them.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/a25653640/gatwick-drones-disable-deterrence/

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 04:41 AM

Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana. Can somebody please tell me how, after all that disruption over three days, there is NO VIDEO FOOTAGE WHATSOEVER of the alleged "drone attacks"??

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM

In God we trust, all others must bring data!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 05:31 AM

Steve Shaw: 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.

There is "geofencing" technology available, and used in many off-the-shelf drones, to prevent them coming within a specified distance of a specified location. But this is easily overcome. And it's very easy to self-build a UAV controller that doesn't incorporate geofencing. My own company does it. Taking over control is not straightforward either....not that it would be much use with an autonomous drone.

Jon Freeman: 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?

Yes, absolutely. Freely available software such as "Mission Planner" allows you to upload a pre-programmed flight path into a UAV which it will follow without any need for an external controller. We use this all the time to fly aerial survey missions looking for unexploded ordnance (aka explosive remnants of war) in areas of conflict.

Jamming GPS signals is possible, but not selectively....you'd have to jam over a significant area, causing a major issues to other applications using GNSS....not least to aircraft!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 05:45 AM

Police are now saying there is a possibility that 'there never was a drone'. Gawd, what an absolute mess this has been! Whatever is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 05:46 AM

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

Not at all correct. We use UAVs with RTK GNSS which are accurate to centimetres. We use "Mission Planner" to programme autonomous flights for our 1.5 metre wide drones along flight lines which are only 1 metre apart. They successfully navigate a whole swathe of lines of this separation to, usually, within 20 cm of the pre-plotted lines.

There is a range limitation on this though, of a few km, subject to the radio link range for the RTK correction.

For other applications we use PPP (Precise Point Positioning) DGNSS (I call it GNSS rather than GPS because even many lower-end commercial systems now combine US GPS, Russian Glonass, Chinese Beidou and, soon, EU Galileo into a single "best solution). The corrections for this mode of operation use global networks of stations to calculate corrections and transmit via satellite to the receiver. These systems are typically accurate to within 1-2 metres in a dynamic environment. Much better in a static environment.

As far back as 1986 I assisted in re-triangulating a bunch of points in northern Brazil using the 25 minutes of 4 satellite coverage per day then available with GPS. We were getting precisions of +/- 2mm plus 1 part per million of the baseline distance between stations, even over 30 years ago. That's better than 20 cm relative positioning over a 150km baseline distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 05:50 AM

Sen: Police are now saying there is a possibility that 'there never was a drone'. Gawd, what an absolute mess this has been! Whatever is going on?

I guess a malicious person or group could cause the same disruption without a drone at all simply by phoning in (from "burner" phones) supposed sightings?

There are other reports that a damaged drone has been found.

I suspect the police are putting out somewhat contradictory information to muddy the waters about what lines of investigation they're following.

Whether this was real or not, we can expect more incidents of a similar nature....probably many more!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 05:56 AM

Will Fly: 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.

They don't need a controlling signal. We use a number of freeware applications that allow a user to pre-load a flight plan into a UAV. Once it takes off, it then becomes "fire and forget" and will execute its mission entirely autonomously. Battery life is the main issue.

You can easily modify on-board electronics to that the mission could be uploaded via mobile phone from hundreds of miles away.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 06:00 AM

I agree Rob. It's bound to have put ideas in the heads of no end of different factions/youngsters/idiots/terrorists.
We can no doubt expect more incidents like this.

Husband has to take several flights to Africa next summer (already booked) from Gatwick-Lisbon-Abidjan-BoboDioulassou and back again. I shan't be at ease while he's travelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 06:10 AM

Don't let him fly from Bullshire Airport, Sen! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 06:21 AM

Hahahaha Backwoodsman! I think Bullshire Airport is best avoided. :)

He used to fly to Amsterdam from Norwich Airport, and thence to Paris CDG, to reach Abidjan, but we found it's much cheaper for him to get a taxi to Gatwick and go via Lisbon. Not keen on him going anywhere near blooming Gatwick now, but he's already bought and paid for the tickets.

BoboDioulasso in Burkina Faso is probably quite safe (and sounds like the first line of a song!) He then crosses the border into northern Cote d'Ivoire on the back of a moped, to access his ancestral village of Nafamadougou.
I used to worry about his safety in these far-flung parts, but now I'm concerned about him setting foot in Gatwick! Ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

Thanks for the info, Rob.

Sen, Gatwick may well be the best "prepared" airport we have at the moment...

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 07:18 AM

Ah Jon, I think you may be right. It's probably going to have a lot of security there from now on.

The problem is, if there are delays for safety reasons, the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down, as he'll miss all his connecting flights.

This happened a couple of years ago with those wretched French Air Traffic Controllers. A brilliant KLM lady at Norwich found him an alternative flight and saved his bacon. We were nearly in tears with relief!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 08:08 AM

Could be that the two arrested may have been the culprits but have either done some sort of deal or it was something to do with a government department. Hence the no drone comment.

Just to kick off a conspiracy theory :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 08:28 AM

Do you know Dave, I've been thinking along those lines too. There's something more to this than they're letting on.
Either they're so inept and ineffectual that the situation is/was entirely beyond their control, or it was far more sinister and they can't tell us more for security reasons.
Time will tell I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 09:25 AM

If the alibi is false, the employer will be prosecuted too and go to jail with the droners.....

       - : -


Could be that the two arrested may have been the culprits but have either done some sort of deal or it was something to do with a government department......

Unsubstantiated speculation such as this can lead to the persecution of innocent people.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 09:33 AM

Oops! Hit the submit button by accident. To continue ......

Today's Daily Telegraph reports that:-

The couple were last night under police protection at their home in Crawley, with a marked police car parked outside the property.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mr Red
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 12:04 PM

All the techy guff that Rob Naylor suggests - begs the question. Anyone that proficient, must have ulterior motives.

And without any claims of responsibility for the PR, can we look eastwards to St Petersburg ?

Hardly assassinations, or rigging elections, now is it? But anyone bold enough to try those would not hesitate throw spanner in the Brexshit news as a smoke screen, to ensure completion of the job they started.

Call me a fantasist all you want, ya can't exclude the buggers until you have a visible culprit. All bets are off.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 12:07 PM

And now I read Suggestion that drone did not exist down to 'poor communications'

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 01:57 PM

Ground Control to made up drone:
Happy Christmas everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 02:16 PM

I second that Iains!
A very Happy Christmas to all on Mudcat!
Eliza

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 04:32 PM

Unsubstantiated speculation such as this can lead to the persecution of innocent people.

Nonsense, Doug. These people, already named in the press, will be persecuted by idiots regardless of any speculation. Comments on a minority interest forum will not make a ha'purth of difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Dec 18 - 03:15 AM

Someone reading this forum tells someone one at work "I read on the internet that ...", who tells a bloke in the pub, who tells his wife, who informs her WattsApp group, who discuss it on Facebook. It MUST be true - it was on the internet.

Drip, drip, drip.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Dec 18 - 06:57 AM

I suppose they count as Unidentified Flying Objects.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Dec 18 - 08:29 AM

If we are going to have a conspiracy theory, that's as good as any - alien beings who have advanced technology to prevent them being photographed. They are probably in league with Trump or the Russians or, possibly, both.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 Dec 18 - 08:35 AM

Perhaps it was the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Dec 18 - 04:57 PM

well it wasn't an eggplant that ate Chicago

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mossback
Date: 26 Dec 18 - 06:44 PM

Drones: and them as run 'em are Unidentified Flaming Assholes.

They fly over MY property, I'll gun 'em down toot sweet. Twelve bore with # 4 shot ought to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Dec 18 - 06:53 PM

Since posting to this thread I have been getting regular sponsored ads on Facebook for training courses in commercial drone piloting.

Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 03:59 AM

Not a great few days for UK airports. First a drone at Gatwick, an IT failure at Heathrow, and then a fault with Birmingham’s air traffic control. Does anyone see a pattern here? Blame Drones/santa's reindeer/pesky Russians, while hiding an internal failure, and what compensation liability exists?

Who is for crowdfunding a massive libel claim for the two innocents falsely accused?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 04:05 AM

Anyone here have experience using drones for photography? Can a small drone take good photos? How much does it cost for a drone with a reasonably good camera? Any recommendations?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 05:13 AM

There is an annual international drone photography contest which gets astonishing results. I assume even a small drone can carry as good a camera as any mobile phone.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: JHW
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 05:35 PM

When I was a bairn, way back in last century you could get model aircraft with tiny petrol engines controlled by radio. Don't remember any complaints.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 06:09 PM

When we were out today in the car we drove past a shop in town which sells remote-controlled model aeroplanes, cars and so on. It had a new billboard outside on the pavement which said in huge red letters WE SELL DRONES.
At first I thought it might be a rather sick joke, but after consideration we both reckoned it was genuine.
People are cashing in on this aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 08:10 PM

I've got one of those tiny little remote-controlled helicopters. Cost me about seventeen quid. I'm bloody useless at it, but my son is a genius with it. It won't fly in bright sunshine.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 27 Dec 18 - 09:03 PM

I have a Syma S107G that cost about the same. Like the other few things I have, not flown in a while and it this case (the others have batteries you can just plug in and remove) never got round to finding out about replacing the battery when it failed.

Dead easy to fly and as said before, I think the concentric rotor ones are naturally stable (and incidentally, don’t use a tail rotor to stop the craft spinning round, the main rotor blades spinning in different directions take care of that and allow turning). They can’t (at least usually) do the side to side movement you’d might expect from a “normal” helicopter though. I've also got a couple of small fixed pitch ones I could cope with.


Some info on different types of RC helicopters here

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: BobL
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:46 AM

JHW, the reason model aircraft weren't such a problem is that to build them and fly them, you had to be an enthusiast. All such people that I knew, banded together in model aircraft clubs where the more level-headed ones had a guiding influence. Membership of the SMAE (now the British Model Flying Association) was not obligatory, but near-universal anyway, and this body provided guidelines for safe flight.
Developments in motors, batteries and fly-by-wire electronics made today's multirotor aircraft possible, which can be flown more-or-less "out of the box". This can be a social hobby - think drone racing - or a solitary one.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 06:49 AM

The more you read about the Gatwick incident, the stranger this seems. At the moment the one thing I would take seriously is the comment by DCS Jason Tingley, that there may not have been any drone in the first place. This was stomped on following a communication from the government (what do they know about it?) to the police, and the Chief Constable now says he is absolutely certain there was a drone. Honest Guv. He says that DCS Tingley was describing an investigative approach which seeks to establish whether there was a drone or not. Well, yes, he is a DCS, thats sort of his job. But there is no photo or film of a drone, and the reports of a damaged drone near the perimeter fence have disappeared (probably because it was rusty and months old). So, there is no hard evidence for a drone. What there are 115 reports, "92 of them from credible people". 1 each from 92 credible people or 92 from one credible person? And who says who is a credible person?

I am sorry, but there is more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than for there having been a drone over Gatwick.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 07:02 AM

Drone photography contest winners

This is one of the more mindblowing ones. Who would have guessed Mecca looks like this?

Grand Mosque at night

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 12:33 PM

I'm still puzzled and sceptical Dave. It's all very odd and unsubstantiated. I'm not one to go rushing into a conspiracy theory or think the Martians have landed, but something is being withheld here from the general public.

Ah Jack, we have a photo of the Kaaba during the Hajj on the wall of our bedroom, and my husband prays facing it (towards the East) He's never performed the Hajj but would really like to.

The nature photos our village chap takes are really beautiful. He flew his small drone past a barn owl perched high up in a tree and got a picture of its rather startled face. And our Wensum Valley pools at dawn, with wild geese arriving.

I'm sure there are responsible drone users, but I still think they should all be registered and certificated, and put on a Police database.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 01:20 PM

Note the date of the link.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/faa-skytracker-drone-detection-airports,news-22313.html
Is it simply a scare story to drive away drone flying near airports?
Or is it real? Surely Europe has an equal vulnerability to rogue drones, not simply because jets engine do not ingest then altogether successfully, but also because their payload may be more than a camera.
Either the CAA in the UK has been very remiss in not addressing what a two year old would recognise to be a potential problem, or we are being mislead, Interesting that a 51% stake in Garwick has been sold to the French, to become a fact very shortly. We now have an invasion of inflatables from France carrying illegal immigrants and drones no longer have headlines.
I suspect we are being played for fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:00 PM

What I hear is the desperate sound of arse-covering. Most likely there has been a massive overreaction to a couple of hysterical phone calls. Followed by the publicity given to these phone calls giving rise to a whole lot more. Followed by those in authority wondering just what it is they have done. And trying to find reasons that it isn't their fault. No conspiracy, just monumental incompetence.

The alternative is that a couple of spotty teenagers in a garage in Crawley have outwitted the CAA, the police, the army and the security apparatus of the UK. Not impossible, I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:03 PM

And for goodness sake Iains, we do not now have "an invasion of inflatables from France". Its a small number of inflatables, and a small number of people. The problem here is that the people in the boats might get drowned, not that they might get in. If they do get in I would wager that having endured that, they will make a better contribution to the economy and society of Britain than the vast majority of people moaning about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:28 PM

Davis Carter I would take issue with Macron's government allowing the
illegal immigrants to pose a risk not only to themselves but to those involved rescuing them from a very busy shipping lane. Where is the French Navy, defending Paris?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:30 PM

I take issue with the British government forcing them into such desperate measures in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:48 PM

As I understand it, the rule is that people fleeing oppression or persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach.
Why do these unfortunate migrants take such dangerous risks when they were already in France, a safe country?

Also, the real rogues are the people traffickers, who take money from the travellers and load them onto a dodgy boat.

I wonder if there have been drownings/sinkings in the Channel which haven't yet been discovered? God forbid.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 04:36 PM

"I take issue with the British government forcing them into such desperate measures in the first place."

Well you may take issue with the British Government but you would be more accurate blaming American foreign policy and their illegal wars in Africa and the Middle east. A close second is the coalition that has supported them in their misadventures. Where have the bulk of the refugees come from and who created them? The western supported Arab Spring created swathes of refugees from Syria. It was a major tourist resort when under the control of Assad and any political emigrants comprised a mere handful. You are not another anglophobe are you?
France still has troops on the ground in Syria, creating further refugees. Why is your outrage not directed to Macron? or the rest of the participants?
    Australia (Operation Okra)
    Bahrain.
    Belgium.
    Canada (Operation Impact § In Syria – pulling out soon)
    France (Opération Chammal)
    Germany (Operation Counter Daesh)
    Netherlands on 29 January 2016

Syria — 6.3 million refugees
Afghanistan — 2.6 million refugees
South Sudan — 2.4 million refugees
Somalia — 986,400 refugees

Not forgetting 22.4 million in need of aid in the Yemen and not forgetting the destruction in Libya and Iraq to support American hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 10:05 PM

It is specifically the British government which is trying to deny these people access to Britain. No use you trying to blame Macron for that. And Britain has been complicit in every single one of the illegal wars you cite.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 01:53 AM

A-a-and.......100! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 04:20 PM

The latest suggestion from the police is that almost all, if not all, of the drone sightings were of their own drones sent up to investigate. Same sort of scenario as GK Chesterton's book where a terrorist cell was entirely composed of secret policemen spying on each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 04:40 PM

Well really! That's like something from Rowan Atkinson's sitcom The Thin Blue Line or the Keystone Cops! Absolutely ridiculous.
There will have to be an independent inquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 08:44 AM

I see a man was arrested for climbing up one of the towers of the Severn Bridge and attempting to fly a blooming drone. It meant the bridge was closed for ages and it caused tailbacks. What a clot!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 12:07 PM

I've often thought that drones should be considered for locating puppy mills and meth labs.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 03:41 PM

"A £50,000 reward for information has been issued by Crimestoppers, which said it had "passed on close to 30 pieces of information to law enforcement within the first 24 hours".

A suggestion by a senior Sussex police officer that there may have been no drones was later dismissed as a "miscommunication".

The force said it was investigating "relevant sightings" from 115 witnesses - 93 of whom it described as "credible" - including airport staff, police officers and a pilot.

The MoD said: "The military capability has now been withdrawn from Gatwick. The Armed Forces stand ever-ready to assist should a request for support be received."

Tens of thousands delayed at the airport because of drones. Probably 90% had a phone with a camera. There were also numerous "officials" , drone hunting, yet not a single photograph or video has been seen.

Does anyone still believe that a drone ever existed, or did some other
occurrence require flights to be grounded?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 09:40 AM

I think what they said was 115 sightings, 93 of them from credible witnesses. Which if you read it carefully is not precisely the same.

My view is that it a combination of monumental incompetence and mass hysteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 02:14 PM

Credible witnesses have also sighted UFOs. Most people tend to laugh at them.(I keep an open mind)

I would say a "convenient" explanation of monumental incompetence and mass hysteria. Personally I think something else was going on but I have not a clue as to what.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:53 PM

I'm still surprised that no other UK airports have been shut down because of drones. Most odd.

Husband has now had to change his travel schedule as blooming Air Portugal have cancelled some of their flights from Gatwick (one of which was his) and he got cross and demanded a refund.

He's booked a different journey now with Air Brussels, flying from Heathrow. Just two flights to get him to Abidjan. And if The Drones are not in evidence (fingers crossed) it should all proceed safely."Insh Allah" as he puts it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: BobL
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 03:20 AM

Credible witnesses have also sighted UFOs Such as airline pilots perhaps, who aren't going to risk going near enough to identify them.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 01:12 PM

and now Heathrow

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1069060/heathrow-airport-drone-latest-flight-status-suspended-runway-closed-london-news

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 01:26 PM

Oh crumbs Iains! And there was I thinking Heathrow might escape the Curse of The Drones!
He flies on July 31st. Maybe they'll have sorted it out by then? I do feel sorry for all the folk who are delayed/stranded today though. Nightmare!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 03:45 PM

The latest I heard was that after about an hour, flights to and from Heathrow resumed. I hope it stays that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 03:59 PM

Me too Jos.
I saw on the News that they were continuing with landings throughout the scare. Odd, because I'd have thought the danger was the same whether an aircraft was taking off or coming down.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:03 PM

I notice, by the way, that the newscasters are now calling the airport HEATHrow rather than, as English people have always done heretofore, HeathROW.

As for the drones, they're the equivalent of the lasers that bold boys shone into pilots' eyes with dangerous effect a few years ago. (I met a neighbour of mine one day and a kid had just done this to him as he sat at the front seat on the upper salon of a bus. He raced off the bus, collared the lad and gave him a few good thumps, which may not have been correct or wise, but certainly re-educated the little vermin.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 05:01 PM

Newsreaders and broadcasters just seem to follow the latest trends. It's not just HEATHrow, we also get yesterDAY (as if emphasising that it isn't yesternight) instead of YESterday, and 'on the WEEKend' instead of 'at the weekEND'.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 05:06 PM

Heathrow has two runways, one being used for taking off and the other one for landing, and the drone was only seen near one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 05:06 PM

My first seventeen years of life were spent very near there. We could see the control tower clearly from the windows of our classrooms at the grammar school.
As a child my father often took me to the new Queen's Building, where one could go up on the top to view the aircraft.
But in those days, it was called London Airport!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 05:20 PM

I spent two or three years in the sixties living in Hounslow West under the flight path. It was a first-floor flat and it seemed as if the aircraft coming in to land would fly in through the kitchen window and out through the living room. Sometimes the wind changed and the planes were taking off, which was much louder and more disrupting.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 05:35 PM

In my day, the aircraft were mostly propeller types, not jets, so not all that noisy. My father (ex RAF) was crazy about planes and used to identify them all for me, eg Stratocruiser etc.

One of my friends called Susan (most of them were called Susan!) lived opposite the runway at London Airport, on the Bath Road.

I used to go swimming in Heston swimming pool Jos. Not far from Hounslow!

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 06:04 PM

Maybe a bit selfish, but I would do anything to avoid travelling via Heathrow or Gatwick. Travel companies S of the Border seem to think its the only way (at the cost for us N of the Border of an extra flight!)
Edinburgh is our local airport, and while it may not be immune from drone attack, any flying we do starts and finishes here!
(e.g. Buenos Aires - Air France to CDG Paris, then long-haul to Buenos Aires, Singapore - AF to Paris CDG then onward to Singapore, only 2 flights)

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 06:09 PM

We love Edinburgh Airport. Fly direct from Norwich, only takes an hour in a little Dornier plane.

I suppose these idiots-with-drones could pop up at any airport and have 'fun' disrupting flights and causing enormous distress. There should be stiff punishments for doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Mossback
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 06:57 PM

Mud Elves take note: this thread is mis-titled.

It should be designated as "ASSHOLES"

Drones are a piece of machinery- neither good nor bad.

As usual, the morons who use these machines for asinine stuff should be regulated - or better yet assassinated.

Ya can't cure stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:05 PM

I've never said anything other than HEATHrow all my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:09 AM

"I've never said anything other than HEATHrow all my life."

Me too Steve, as does everyone I know. Never heard anyone, English, Outer Mongolian, or whatever, talk about HeathROW. It's also WEEKend where I come from, and YESterday.

Mebbe it's a Norf/Sarf fing?

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:29 AM

I say HEATHrow too. If someone said HeathROW I'd assume it was the name of a street of houses (Heath Row).

Subject: RE: BS: Drones
From: Jos
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:55 AM

In fact, although I say HeathROW, I say HEATHrow airport.