Drone disruption at LGW

[Reorte]

A 'fairly ordinary person' wouldn't do something such as this.  It takes someone determined to disrupt with no thought to others.

 

In terms of attitude, yes, but it's something a lot of ordinary people could do if they chose to do so. It doesn't need hostile states or large criminal organisations to cause problems using drones, it doesn't need wealth or technical geniuses with big facilities to build them. This site is full of people who'd have the technical capability and means for example (not that I'm suggesting anyone here would even dream of doing so).

Edited December 22, 2018 by Reorte

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[jjb1970]

The problem with so many of the "hang em high" comments made on this forum with regard to consequences and sentencing for these individuals - if they are ever caught and convicted - is that effectively many posters on here are advocating a particularly harsh sentence for an act which didn't cause any death or destruction, just merely annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people.

Compare that for example with some of the single figure/suspended etc sentences handed out regularly for those found guilty of crimes such as a rape, serious assault, child neglect, death by dangerous driving, manslaughter etc. All of which I would consider far more serious than somone missing a few days of their holidays.

I think more than a few of us need something of a sense of perspective in that regard rather than foaming at the mouth as befits the Daily Mail comments page.

Joseph Pestell makes a number of salutory legal points which certain people seem determined to twist and contrive out of all proportion.

The length of time it has taken to get the airport up and running again, coupled with the authorities and military seemingly helpless to do anything acts as a huge advertisement to wrong-uns everywhere at just how easy it is to cause serious mayhem. One thing is for certain and that is this won't be the last time drones are used in such a manner.

I tend to view that as an argument for more severe sentencing for serious crimes involving violence and think sentencing for serious crimes in this country is a joke.

[BMacdermott]

Nothing that we have heard over two days of reporting has suggested that the drone(s) have been flown anywhere near the flightpath/take-off trajectory of the aircraft.

 

The operators knew perfectly well that the airport would close down at the mere sight of the drones in proximity to the runway, so they did not need to endanger an aircraft - just show that they had the capability to endanger an aircraft. It's not the same thing.

 

Hello Joseph

 

The deciding factor here is that the drone was infringing controlled airspace.

 

Brian

[TomE]

They probably weren't prepared, having not contemplated such an event. Oh, hang on:

 

lgw9.png

 

Check the delay back then. A total of 14 minutes over two periods (9 & 5). Not two days, not repeated. And yet no actual documented evidence of 'things' happening - then or now. As I said earlier, I find that highly surprising, considering the surveillance/security/intel available...

 

 

This is the 4th occasion Gatwick has been closed due to drone activity I believe.

 

The Airport must accept its share of the blame for not taking the threat of prolonged disruption seriously, or not considering it a threat at all, and acting to prevent drones from entering the airspace around it using the systems available. The same applies to every other airport operator. 

 

As I said previously, this is a rapidly emerging technology that airports and aviation industry in general have simply failed to keep up with. Whilst the person/persons responsible for this particular event should absolutely pay the price for their actions, if the airport's response had been more proactive after the first event we may not have seen the level of disruption we did this time. 

 

Tom.  

[Oldddudders]

Did I see a newspaper headline today (hey, it was before 8 in a crowded Lidl!) suggesting new drone legislation had already been drafted but not enacted?

[PMP]

Nothing that we have heard over two days of reporting has suggested that the drone(s) have been flown anywhere near the flightpath/take-off trajectory of the aircraft.

 

The operators knew perfectly well that the airport would close down at the mere sight of the drones in proximity to the runway, so they did not need to endanger an aircraft - just show that they had the capability to endanger an aircraft. It's not the same thing.

 

 

 

OMG as the kids say!, you don't have to fly a drone into the flight path or trajectory of an aircraft to endanger it. Your simplistic assumption that the aircraft has to be flying shows the basic lack of understanding you have regarding the issue.

 

I can look at my desk in front of me and can see things such as a stapler, and use it in such a way that I could be reasonably sure of getting a five year stretch by endangering an aircraft without the aircraft even leaving the ground.

[TomE]

Did I see a newspaper headline today (hey, it was before 8 in a crowded Lidl!) suggesting new drone legislation had already been drafted but not enacted?

 

 

Some of the new legislation is in effect, but not all of it. 

 

The change to make it illegal to operate drones within 1km of an airport boundary and above 400ft agl came into effect on the 31st July this year. 

 

The requirements to register drones weighing over 250 grammes and take an online test are yet to be introduced. This should happen during 2019. 

 

Tom. 

[jjb1970]

We clearly need more laws to make something which is already illegal even more illegal.

[Dunsignalling]

Did I see a newspaper headline today (hey, it was before 8 in a crowded Lidl!) suggesting new drone legislation had already been drafted but not enacted?

Quite probably. The UK parliament only has one thing on its collective "mind" at the moment and everything else seems to have been kicked into the long grass.

 

Wouldn't be so bad if they'd made any real progress on their pet topic in the past three years.   

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

Some of the new legislation is in effect, but not all of it. 

 

The change to make it illegal to operate drones within 1km of an airport boundary and above 400ft agl came into effect on the 31st July this year. 

 

The requirements to register drones weighing over 250 grammes and take an online test are yet to be introduced. This should happen during 2019. 

 

Tom. 

Some sort of security screening/psychological profiling might be a good idea, too.

 

John

[PMP]

Some sort of security screening/psychological profiling might be a good idea, too.

 

John

 

Not sure that's going to work over the counter at Argos. The real problem here is the illegal use. This is like buying a car, they can all exceed the speed limit, but its the operator that makes the decision whether to or not, and the few, be they irresponsible, or acting with deliberate criminal intention, will always cause the greater harm. 'We' won't be profiling car buyers in a showroom, and you cant control second hand car sales. If you get the profile wrong, who then takes the blame for a subsequent fatal car crash? No different to the drone position. 

 

I've spoken to a number of PFCO drone operators over the past day or two whom are rightly (IMHO), concerned about the unfair impact these events may bring in the future to their business.

[Welchester]

[stewartingram]

If we are not careful, the model aviation world will suffer the same knee jerk reaction that the shooting world did in the last century.

 

Hundreds of thousands of people enjoy flying model aircraft (fixed and rotary wing) just as others do shooting.  You never hear anything about them until you get an incident, then the press go into overdrive and every person who buys a drone/gun is a raving nut job.

 

We also have to remember that some of the many drones that will be sold this Christmas are tiny little things, only really capable of flight indoors with extremely limited range, and are harmless.  

 

Certainly most of the quadcopters I have been involved with  would be lucky to reach 200 feet and the range was limited to about 5-8 minutes of flight time.

 

These are hardly the type of model that are going to be terrorising seasoned pilots at 10,000 feet on the approach to a major airport.  

 

However, anyone with a braincell can  custom build a quadcopter using off the shelf parts, and with the flight times and performance that plagued Gatwick, they would suggest a hand built machine.

 

Finally after much fluffing around the Army got called in and used an Israeli designed system to negate the threat.  Considering the fact that during WWII the RAF had 100 Group, dedicated to electronic countermeasures, and we were world leaders in such development, it is a sad state of affairs that our defence industry is reduced to buying in some thing that once would have been a 'bread and butter' item from within the UK

 

Of course lets not forget we also have the inept approach of Government who could so easily have adopted the stance taken by the USA in civil airfield protection.  Instead they took the rather wet and introverted policy of wait and see, so are now playing catch up rather than having been a bit more proactive.

 

I'm just surprised that no one has yet blamed Brexit!

 

They already have! Apparently Grayling put off a Bill against drones because of the time spent on Brexit, or so I heard somewhere this morning.

 

Stewart

[kevinlms]

drones.jpg

So that is an updated version of the front page from the Daily Wail?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

[kevinlms]

They already have! Apparently Grayling put off a Bill against drones because of the time spent on Brexit, or so I heard somewhere this morning.

 

Stewart

That statement appears on the front page of The Times.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

[WessexEclectic]

Some sort of security screening/psychological profiling might be a good idea, too.

 

Presume that you are referring to RMWeb members....?

[hayfield]

We clearly need more laws to make something which is already illegal even more illegal.

 

Laws need to be updated to match the improved performances of these drones, at one time most cheap drones were small and had limited ranges, now newer versions provide far more sophisticated and better performing machines, legislation has to keep pace.

 

I think the ages of the 2 persons arrested show that this is more likely a premeditated action rather than young pranksters. Still it shows what can be achieved by terrorists who may have more sinister ambitions, if so a timely reminder.  

Edited December 22, 2018 by hayfield

[Oldddudders]

Did I see a newspaper headline today (hey, it was before 8 in a crowded Lidl!) suggesting new drone legislation had already been drafted but not enacted?

  

They already have! Apparently Grayling put off a Bill against drones because of the time spent on Brexit, or so I heard somewhere this morning.

 

Stewart

  

That statement appears on the front page of The Times.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

My case rests.

[Nearholmer]

"more likely a premedicated action"

 

Are you saying that you think they were "on something"? Sanatogen, perhaps?

[EddieB]

So that is an updated version of the front page from the Daily Wail?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs/the_papers

Below the couple performing a nazi salute?

[jjb1970]

Laws need to be updated to match the improved performances of these drones, at one time most cheap drones were small and had limited ranges, now newer versions provide far more sophisticated and better performing machines, legislation has to keep pace.

 

I think the ages of the 2 persons arrested show that this is more likely a premeditated action rather than young pranksters. Still it shows what can be achieved by terrorists who may have more sinister ambitions, if so a timely reminder.

In some ways I'd agree, however in this particular case what happened was already illegal and introducing controls such a controlling sales, or registering drones or requiring some sort of licensing won't do anything to prevent such actions where there is nefarious intent.

[PMP]

 

I think the ages of the 2 persons arrested show that this is more likely a premeditated action rather than young pranksters. Still it shows what can be achieved by terrorists who may have more sinister ambitions, if so a timely reminder.

 

Well they’ve arrested two people, they may not be the perpetrators, they may not be connected at all, time will tell if charges are pressed. Assuming a prosecution is made against someone it’ll be interesting to see which section of the legal framework is used. Under the Aviation and security act 1990, there is the potential of a life tariff for disruption of an international airport which is separate to the ‘endangering’ law and breaches of the Air Navigation Order. If a prosecution is successful that opens the door for compensation claims from the aviation industry, as well as private individuals for personal ‘loss’. The potential implications for anyone convicted are not just the porridge they’ll receive.

[PhilJ W]

Well they’ve arrested two people, they may not be the perpetrators, they may not be connected at all, time will tell if charges are pressed. Assuming a prosecution is made against someone it’ll be interesting to see which section of the legal framework is used. Under the Aviation and security act 1990, there is the potential of a life tariff for disruption of an international airport which is separate to the ‘endangering’ law and breaches of the Air Navigation Order. If a prosecution is successful that opens the door for compensation claims from the aviation industry, as well as private individuals for personal ‘loss’. The potential implications for anyone convicted are not just the porridge they’ll receive.

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

[Mallard60022]

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

 

Agreed, however sadly there are a load of people out there now who, seemingly, couldn't give a stuff about the 'time'. Another sad fact is that the increase in  people's suspicion will rise and although vigilance is a fine thing to encourage, as on trains, stations etc. other behaviours also develop and sadly we have witnessed the treatment of absolutely innocent folk jut because they seem 'different'. 

Scary (not a good word, I'm sorry)  thing is that the couple pictured in that article look like most people in my local estate!

P