Great Western Coffee Shop

As well reported in various media, Gatwick airport has been closed for over 24 hours due to illegal flying of drones near the runway.
The disruption is substantial and is likely to continue until Christmas, due to the backlog even if the airport reopens soon.
The armed forces have been called out to assist.

The motives of those behind this are unclear, the local police have stated that it is NOT terror related, but IS deliberate.

I suspect either anti-airport protesters or "deep green" protesters who are opposed to air travel.

BBC Radio 4 Today programme reporting Gatwick runway is open and a limited number of flights will be taking off and landing.

What gets me is that TV detector vans can detect which room in an unlicensed property a TV is operating and yet in this case the authorities can't scan the radio spectrum that these drones use and pin-point the location of the transmitting control unit.

Much more to it than I have mentioned I suspect.

Shoot it down with a, err, drone. 

There's a very healthy online debate as to whether TV detection really exists; it doesn't seem to figure highly in evidence given in court cases.

It maybe that todays flat screen TV are different but with Cathode Tube TV's of the past it was the detection of the pulses emitted by the oscillators in the set that gave the TV away.

That claim formed part of the debate I referred to, as did another that it was the aerial on the roof that gave you away...

That was my and I expect most people's initial assumption. However, the Extinction Rebellion people have said it was not them, and they don't seem averse to disruption. No one else has claimed it. I wouldn't rule out a small group doing it just for the lulz, no big point.

yep, or even (anti) Brexit campaigner(s)....frankly right now, it could be a teenage kid getting their kicks.

All we know for sure is that rules governing ownership/use are totally inadequate & this was easuily forecast. It wouldn't take many to bring total chaos to UK airports.

Is the drone the latest thing after cyber attacks?
Cause lots of chaos with not a lot of effort.

Does anyone know why suddenly some planes are able to take off and land yet before this morning they weren't and yet the same drone is up in the air still?

Where did you see that news? It isn't, & hasn't been seen all night. Oblique comments that they have done 'something' to prevent overflying (blocked their frequency?)

I've heard several politicians saying that, and have almost got to the stage of shouting at the TV. Changing the rules - such as licensing, or the size of the exclusion zone - isn't the point; what went on yesterday was already against the existing rules. Changing the law, so as to allow physical intervention to remove an object from the wrong place, may be needed - I don't think there is any such power at the moment (but if they could yesterday they would have, and looked at the law afterwards). Enforcement, in the sense of the equipping the police (or whoever) with that kind of intervention capability, is what is really needed and lacking.

The drone need not transmit even if it is controlled from the ground, and autonomous operation with no controlling transmission (for a whole flight or just parts of it) isn't hard to do, though perhaps not with standard retail kit. And making one work on a different radio frequency isn't impossible either. Ultimately, you just have to go up and grab it (or convert it into an brick, aerodynamically speaking).

Is this open again. Done from my phone.

Yup - thanks! I've forgotten what I was going to post now... can't have been mission-critical  ;D

And after all that!!!.☺

It's open and we can drone on about flying (or not flying) again.   ;D ;D

There is a good analysis of the technical issues in locating and disposing of the drone(s) here:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/20/gatwick_drone_non_shootdown_reasons/

There is no debate - TV Licensing (Capita) have admitted that no one has ever been prosecuted on "detector" van evidence.  The reason is quite simple; TVL have never disclosed how these so-called detector vans and their equipment work. For TVL to use this equipment as prosecution Court evidence, full technical details of this equipment and how it is used must be made available to the defendant (as it is with speed cameras). This info has never been released, so detector van evidence is not admissible - if it even exists ! There is a second, perhaps more serious, reason, some legal minds have postulated that covertly "listening" to someone's TV is in the same legal category as telephone tapping - and even Capita can't do that !   

Except it has just been closed again... (17:25 Friday)  :(

I have great sympathy for travellers caught up in this.  There’s been fierce criticism from some of how Gatwick has handled it, but, as with when there’s a major railway meltdown, you simply can’t deal with everyone as you and they would like.  I’m sure many staff worked extra hours and others came in especially, but there is a limit to what your systems, processes and staff on the ground can deal with, though I’m sure lessons can be learned.

It was nice to see the railways, GNER especially, helping out with free travel to displaced passengers.  Let’s hope this now doesn’t become a regular occurrence at our airports.

I don't think it even need be controlled. It could be on a programmed flight path, with someone waiting at the landing zone to collect it and send it on its next programmed path.

This will be a recurring problem IMHO.
Even if the perpetrators had been caught, which AFAIK they have not, the drone flying was a great success from the point of view of those organising it.
Whatever the motive was, I foresee copycat efforts.

I also perceive significant risks of false alarms and consequent closures because someone THINKS that they have seen a drone.

This will be a recurring issue, but probably not for long. You can bet your bottom rouble that if money has been the reason that there isn't a technology solution in the past, there will be a sudden loosening of the purse strings. There was some kit tested at Southend airport, that has led to a system being deployed at Guernsey prison to stop drones delivering drugs. That works with the smaller radio controlled stuff capable of lifting half a kilo or so, but how good it would be against the professional stuff being used here, I couldn't say. As for tracing the operators, just take a look at how big Gatwick is. It would take days to search everywhere that an operator could be. Triangulation of the radio signal could possibly be done, but apart from the possibility of something autonomous and pre-programmed being used, you could probably control one with commands issued via the mobile phone network. The RAF fly UAV's (posh name for big drones) in Afghanistan and Syria, with the controllers in Lincolnshire. I'd bet that a couple of clever sods with degrees in communications and computing could set up something rudimentary that would achieve some of the things we have seen in the past couple of days.

My money is on the environmental activist sector, but they usually brag about their stunts within the hour, and no-one has said a word yet. A foreign power could be behind it, just to show us that they can do it. A cartoon I have seen shows the Prime Minister at the controls, presumably to give the papers less room for Brexit.


Mine are in the loft.

In my earlier post I concentrated on the highest level of response that is needed against foreseeable threats, and rather ignored the lower levels that are also needed. In the current Gatwick incident, it appears that level one would have been enough, so its absence is rather striking.

These are the four main levels of response I can think of:

1. detect and track intrusive objects by radar.

2. monitor and locate radio emissions likely to be relevant

3. suppress radio communications used in operating the intruders

4. remove the intrusive objects from the protected airspace

With regard to (2), spotting the right signal is hard unless it stands out on some way from others. If it looks just like many innocent users of a radio band you may never find it, though there are still techniques that can be used even then. But without success at doing (2), you can't do (3), which is in any case hard to do without massive power (swamping legitimate users over a wide area) or knowing where the receiver is.

And as to (1), you can buy radars designed to detect birds at airports, though I've not heard of any British airport with one. Drones of specific types, or other threats that main ATC radars would miss, might call for different detection processing in the radar, but the task is certainly doable. Sensitivity is not as issue: radars have been used for over 20 years to detect insects, capable of tracking a 2 mg aphid at 1km range, and telling you its species and where it is going. And drones are a lot bigger than that, and have twirly bits on them - and that always makes a radar's job in detecting them easier.

So it is not unreasonable to expect airports to have equipped themselves with radars to detect anything suspicious in their immediate vicinity. Obviously to have that kind of capability available, you needed to start thinking about it a long time ago. But if this Gatwick event does turn out to be at the lower level of criminality, it may be a valuable alarm signal to the airports (as well "police" in the broad sense) to accelerate their digital extraction plans.

Reported this morning that 2 arrests have been made, enquires continue.

The problem dealing with these types of drones is they are small and very nibble, attempts to shoot them with a rifle could lead to collateral damage cause by stray rounds also to get close enough to reliably hit the target the drone operator could see the marksman via the live feed from the drone; same would apply for net type devices.

The deterrent has to be arrests, prosecutions and a length custodial sentence.   Technological solutions can be overtaken by ………… technology also the drones could be adapted by the technically savvy to operate on different frequencies etc

Obvious solution - don't shoot the drone, shoot the operator. Bigger target, slower moving (less "nibble" too!) 🙂

How nice it is to see that the sprit Of goodwill towards all men has finally arrived in his thread
And while I'm here A Very Merry Christmas,and a Peaceful,prosperous ,and HappyNewyear to all.

Interesting headline in The Times today

‘Grayling put drone law on hold before flight chaos’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/

OK, perhaps I was a bit harsh, maybe not shoot them.......... ;D

https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/20/grandma-says-gatwick-drone-pilot-hanged-punishment-8271307/?fbclid=IwAR3d5vV-H_uNtxuPsFXWd7vWGipSt0zMq0O2X8rYlpmmUvlZazrBNht0vS0

There's an interesting quote from Chris Woodroofe, Chief Operating Officer, Gatwick Airport, in the CAA press release announcing tightened drone laws (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-drone-laws-bring-added-protection-for-passengers) in May 2018:


proving that it is one thing outlawing something, and quite another stopping it.

There is mention in that article about the penalties someone may face for "endangering the safety of an aircraft" - unlimited fine and / or 5 years in prison as a maximum. This bit of law was achieved by an amendment to the Air Navigation Order 2016, and so far as I can see was done by Statutory Instrument rather than primary legislation. So far as I can tell, there is no case law relating to deliberate interference with the operation of an airport, so this will be interesting on a number of fronts. If it comes to trial, that is.

Why are these being flied so close to an airport, is it deliberate or pure accident,They not knowing the airport was there.

I had to share this, sorry  ;D

As well as a custodial sentence, I think those prosecuted should get to meet some of their victims to hear their stories of holidays ruined, family occasions missed/cancelled, trying to get home for Christmas and what thousands of people have lost out financially as a result of what they’ve done.

IF they are prosecuted and found wanting, could not those affected sue for loss of whatever? Idle musings perhaps.

Now there's an idea...………..a different scale of criminality altogether of course, but perhaps Messrs Hopwood et al could do the same after the next GWR meltdown?  I know, we could call it "Meet the Manager"!  ;D

Finding the culprits is a step but uncovering the motive would be more interesting and useful.

I suppose that is just possible, but I'm not sure why a deaf and blind couple would really want a drone.


Now that's what they call blue sky thinking! Send in your delay/repay form as now, but add a victim impact statement.

Telegraph online reporting they've been released without charge....were arrested on a tip off, rather than caught red-handed.

So quite possible they'll be back....

Have the police consficated the drone,I assume they are not cheap.

Confiscated whose drone?

If the police DID confiscate the drone from the two former suspects, then this has presumably been returned as the former suspects are no longer suspects and have been released without charge.

Drones cost from under £100 up to many thousands of pounds, depending on size and sophistication.

The usual trial-by-media too, unfortunately. Yesterday they were the 'Morons who ruined Christmas', today, innocent citizens. Who knows the truth? Certainly not me. I wish we could just let justice take its rather pedestrian course.

An anonymous tip-off phoned in by a local drone enthusiast, surely not?   ;D

Paul

I think if I were "Mr & Mrs Moron" I would be looking for a good no win-no fee lawyer at this point  .................

"Let's sue the buggers for what's rightfully mine! I mean yours."

Probably better to negotiate terms  for a story. Where's Max Clifford when you need him, eh?

I think you mean *what* drone. Police saying it might not even exist as no footage, only human verbal reports with no details exist.

And that was a "miscommunication" by police. 67 individual reported sightings.

hmmm. Video of interview with Police not withdrawn yet...

I suspect that some of the initial reported sightings were real, but that the situation then degenerated into hysteria, with most subsequent reports being mistaken.
I also consider it possible that a large drone, or even a manned glider or microlight was flown at a permitted distance from the airport, and was mistaken for a smaller craft much nearer.

If the initial drone flights WERE a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, then those responsible are probably very impressed with the results.

It's starting to remind me of the Warminster "Thing"......................

Could be a portal to Rendlesham Forest.  ;D

From the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041256)


No they haven't received 200k - they've received 55k. The lawyers have received nearly three times that.

I must admit when I read that on the BBC my first thought was what was the size of the legal bill. 

A good day for justice. "Don't worry my friend, we'll sue them for what's rightfully mine. I mean yours." The legal costs would been a lot higher had it gone to court, but the compensation wouldn't have been. Maybe the police needed a few reminders? The alibi seemed a bit flimsy - "We don't own a drone and were both at work". I'm no Inspector Clouseau, but  reckon I could have confirmed or debunked that fairly quickly with resorting to any an early morning call with the Police Universal Doorkey.

Still, £55,000 for 36 hours work - could someone start a rumour about me flying drones near airports please?

I have liked (and I know you jest) - but I urge caution.  36 hours could turn into 37 years.  Forgive this being a Facebook link ... https://www.facebook.com/AGTLiveTour/videos/1131819503856215/

I certainly wouldn't try it in any of those former colonies where justice remains arbitrary, but we remain more tolerant over here, including of idiots. So I should be OK.