BS: Drones

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! :-)