UK Now Has Systems To Combat Drones (bbc.com) 129
Detection systems are now able to be deployed throughout the UK to combat the threat of drones, ministers say. It follows three days of disruption at Gatwick airport last week, when drones were sighted near the runway. From a report: Security minister Ben Wallace said those who use drones "either recklessly or for criminal purposes" could expect "the most severe sentence". It comes after the couple arrested and released without charge over the chaos at Gatwick said they felt "violated". About 1,000 flights were affected during 36 hours of chaos at Gatwick airport last week. The airport has spent 5 million Pound ($6.36 million) since Wednesday on new equipment and technology to prevent copycat attacks.
No Evidence of an Actual Drone (Score:2, Informative)
No Evidence of an Actual Drone
Re: No Evidence of an Actual Drone (Score:2)
You mean, other than the wreckage of the downed one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nothing substantial (Score:1)
Finding bits of a drone doesn't mean that it was the actual drone causing the kerfuffle.
Where did anyone claim to have downed the drone causing the problems? The government couldn't even find the actual people responsible .
There isn't even credible footage of the drone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, none of the 67 people reporting drones had a working camera on their cell phone.
Most unfortunate.
Let me predict here that this stuff does not work (Score:2)
The only purpose of "anti-drone" equipment at this time is to transfer money from the buyer to the vendor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, maybe the whole attack war a marketing-stunt...
Re: Let me predict here that this stuff does not w (Score:4, Funny)
It isn't hard to build anti-drone gear, assuming anti-missile lasers exist. Drones don't have anti-anti-missile gear.
Radio direction finders can locate transmitters in range. Lancaster bombers can then take out the one that suddenly runs away when you blow up the drone.
This not only removes the problem, but also puts on a vintage aircraft show.
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually very hard as that gear needs to be usable next to an airport or in a city. Remember why they could not use snipers?
Re: (Score:2)
They must be silly then that they did not do that. Or maybe you are just an idiot with no clue how things work in the actual world.
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't remember why they can't use a little 410 shotgun to pop drones at all.
Because a shotgun has an effective range of about 50 meters, and Gatwick Airport has an area of 674 hectares (2.6 sq miles).
You would need thousands of shotguns, and some way to aim and maintain them.
Also, there is a simple counter-counter-measure: The drone could fly slightly higher.
Re: (Score:2)
You would need thousands of shotguns, and some way to aim and maintain them.
Now this is beginning to sound entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea! And fry tons of very expensive radar, communication and safety gear in the bargain!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suggest you go learn about microwaves before fear mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
You think you can target that stuff well, against a moving target in a potentially reflector-rich environment? Also, microwaves are not laser. You get some side-emissions in all directions, no matter what you do. And, incidentally, all this has been tried and failed.
Re:Let me predict here that this stuff does not wo (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Mysterious drone appears (or not!) in the skies over Gatwick Airport...
2. ...Some days later, 5m is spent with an unnamed drone countermeasures company.
3. PROFIT!! (no ??? needed!)
Re: (Score:3)
The drone actually hovered by the windows of the control tower, seriously, who would be stupid enough to do that and not expect police to follow the drone back to the users, manually. There is no way, any one could have expected to get that drone back or not get arrested trying. The whole thing a massive false flagging scam and no one can pretend otherwise. A real investigation needs to occur and those corporate douche bag types need an extended custodial sentence. I dare so more millions will be spent on a
Re: (Score:2)
The drone actually hovered by the windows of the control tower, seriously, who would be stupid enough to do that and not expect police to follow the drone back to the users, manually.
How do you expect them to do that? Given the range involved, and the ability to fly over obstacles, they can't follow your drone without an aircraft. You need drones to catch drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't information on government contracts available, unless there's some kind of security classification?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In this case we can make some unflattering inferences, given that they apparently didn't have a remotely adequate system last week(or they would have used it rather than fail visibly for three days); and given that one tends not to put together a system of th
Re: (Score:2)
Most nations have them but only so many exist per decade and only in a few places at any one time.
knee-jerk reaction mode engaged... (Score:3)
Ben Wallace filter: blah blah blah knee-jerk reaction bla bla bla.
I'm sure this was well thought out and the UK has purchased a system worth every pence.
They bought something from someone (Score:2)
But won't divulge any actual information.
Is it possible they will be using specially trained hawks and owls to hunt drones near the airports?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible they will be using specially trained hawks and owls to hunt drones
Oh they’re using hawks alright. Begun the drone wars have.
Re: (Score:2)
Danger? (Score:2)
Can someone with actual aircraft knowledge explain how drones are a danger to commercial aircraft?
The drones with which I am familiar are lightweight devices largely made of plastic and Styrofoam. It seems to me that the danger is similar to that of a bird strike, meaning substantially zero, unless one is ingested in an engine. In addition, it seems like it would be very, very difficult to actively pilot a drone -- a relatively slow moving object, having limited range and flight duration -- into the path
Re: Danger? (Score:5, Informative)
https://youtu.be/QH0V7kp-xg0 [youtu.be]
Re: Danger? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is the problem -- it's not the same thing:
1. The test is on a general aviation aircraft wing, a Mooney M20, not a commercial jet aircraft, which is much more rugged
2. The speed used was 238 mph, while the Mooney M20c has a do-not-exceed speed of 164 kt [aopa.org] (190 mph), and takeoff and climbing is typically at something more like 88-105 KIAS. 238 mph would have to assume that the drone was headed into the plane at 48 mph when the plane was doing its top speed -- and it's unlikely the plane could do that speed at an altitude the drone could reach.
A more realistic test would be the wing of a 737 at its takeoff speed of 130 kt. Has that test ever been done?
Re: (Score:1)
drone has no right to be flying at an airport
Re: Danger? (Score:4, Interesting)
They are about as much danger as a bird, in worst case scenario you get some damage unless you have a flock of them. You donâ(TM)t want them in your jets but itâ(TM)s unlikely since the drones would be pushed out of the way by air currents.
Planes experience a lot more pressure from air resistance than a small drone could, as long as weâ(TM)re not talking about military predator drones the size of a small Cessna.
Re: (Score:3)
What am I overlooking?
Public perception.
For many years mobile phones were banned on commercial flights in case there might be a problem of unspecified nature that may have been caused by the phone signals.
And it is the same here, there is practically no knowledge or hard facts about what damage a drone would do to an airliner. But it is far easier to simply ban them and then spin it as being "look, we've done something positive to make your lives safer" than it is to conduct research and then produce conclusions that some pe
Re: (Score:2)
And it is the same here, there is practically no knowledge or hard facts about what damage a drone would do to an airliner.
Except that the damage from birds is well researched and the damage from drones is easily proven as being far worse than birds using simple physics.
Mind you your perception thing is bullshit as well as those same simple physics also show how mobile phones do nothing to aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen videos of the tests they do on jet engines for big jets. They used a frozen chicken and shot it from a cannon at 200mph into the intake of a stationary engine running at full power.
Surprisingly the damage was minimal although the engine slowed down for a moment. I am not sure many drones would have the same kinetic energy as a frozen chicken.
And early model mobile digital phones used to actually cause CRT screens to fail and sometimes start smoking so issues with mobile phone interference were v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The drones with which I am familiar are lightweight devices largely made of plastic and Styrofoam.
How do they fly? The drones I'm familiar with contain tightly wound metal along with a solid iron/neodymium rotating core. When you collide with this at over 300km/h it happily punches holes through metal. When it gets ingested into engines for that engine it's game over.
They are heavier and more solid than birds, and birds have been known to take down aircraft.
Re: (Score:1)
Kneejerk (Score:2)
Drone stops waterbombing bushfire (Score:2)
Front page news on Boxing Day here in Australia at the moment is this story [abc.net.au] about a drone interrupting waterbombing attempts of a bushfire in Tasmania. So we need this system here too.
I don't know enough about drones but I assume the ones that have any reasonable range use radio for communicating from the remote. How hard is it to use direction finding techniques to find the source of the transmitter controlling the drone?
Their system is really simple too (Score:2)
Duck hunt (Score:2)
From a country that pretty makes hunting it's national sport, I find it amusing it took them this long finding a solution. And I'm baffled it doesn't include a rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking outside the box. (Score:1)
They spent $6 million in just a few days? (Score:3)
There is no way to make a wise $6 million purchase of ANYTHING in just a few days. It takes time to carry out due diligence. This airport management is clearly incompetent, unless the story should have said they BEGAN the process of spending the money.
EMP Gun probably good enough (Score:2)
I've flown RC toys and model rockets and am a little dismayed at the fact that in some countries (Canada) the drone usage laws are stupidly restrictive. However if you fly a drone into an airport that's just asking for trouble and not getting any sympathy from me. It's really too bad common-sense doesn't work for some folks. Some simple defences against drones might be a Net gun or a EMP Canon as most consumer drones won't be that well shielded. A hobbyist drone could be shielded against EMPs but that j
Re:The idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you think punishing somebody innocent is the solution to this problem? Because, you know, they only release people without charge if they have absolutely nothing on them...
Re: The idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is innocent? They were caught breaking the law.
No they weren't. They were arrested based on a "tip-off". There is no other evidence against them.
We really need to change the legal system in both the UK and US. The police should not be releasing names of people that are merely suspects, even when the police are under political pressure to show that they are "doing something".
This couple had their lives turned upside down. They had their names and faces plastered on news reports where they were called "morons", and blamed for "ruining Christmas". Yet the police had no evidence against them, and no justification for naming them to the press.
They should get a lawyer and sue for the mental distress caused by the police's reckless incompetence. That would be a no-brainer in America, but even in the UK, they might get a nice payout.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All indications are that the media worked out the identities some of them (not all, it has to be noted) and decided to run with it on the assumption they were guilty.
In some countries it would be illegal to publish those identities regardless of guilt perceived or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this whole scenario is that the media can payoff whoever they please, and get away with publishing the names. Until someone is actually arrested and charged, they should not be allowed to so so...freedom of the press be damned. I want a free press too, but they need to be responsible just like we can't yell fire in a theater willynilly.
Re: (Score:2)
The police should not be releasing names of people that are merely suspects
They should not be releasing names Period. It's not up to the media and a public lynching to exert justice. That is for the legal system. People should be investigated, do their time for a crime and then be released when the system deems them fit to return to society without society ever knowing about it.
A few license based exceptions should occur, but again these should not result in trial by media. i.e. Someone who repeatedly drinks and drives should not get a license. Someone who touches little boys shou
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have secret courts then? Here, you get arrested and if the cops decide there's enough evidence, take you in front of a Judge within 1-3 days and at that point any reporters in the court can find out your name and what you're charged with.
There is a possibility of a publication ban but the courts are reluctant to use it.
OTOH, after doing time and keeping nose clean for a couple of years, it is easy to get a pardon and then it is illegal to discriminate based on previous crimes generally. Things like be
Re: (Score:2)
Here, you get arrested and if the cops decide there's enough evidence, take you in front of a Judge within 1-3 days and at that point any reporters in the court can find out your name and what you're charged with.
Banning the media from publishing names in a criminal case doesn't make it a secret court. You can go to the court case if you're interested, but expect to end up in court for a whole different reason if you then go outside and publicly publish names of the people inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Publication bans don't work so well in this internet age where info is easily published in another jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh whose jurisdiction? Sure you can leak something out onto the internet, but remember you're criminally liable. Do you trust the guys you leaked it to (illegally) to keep quiet about it since you own 100% of the liability?
Now you may consider doing this for something incredibly important (to you), but the reality is the ban works just fine because no one is interested in being held criminally liable to publish names no one gives a shit about.
However you're not wrong. Take the absurdity and really REALLY hi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, right next to the USA. Americans aren't under our jurisdiction but there TV signals etc leak across the border fine. I doubt that they'd extradite over speech so as long as the American leaker doesn't come to Canada, they're not going to be prosecuted and I doubt that they'd be prosecuted even if they came to Canada and the authorities bothered investigating enough to make a case.
We've had similar problems as your high profile case, Pickton comes to mind, very high profile serial killer, had
Re: (Score:2)
They should not be releasing names Period.... But in every case the public really shouldn't be involved in any way.
Open courts are a cornerstone of a free society. Names should not be released until the suspect is formally charged, but from that point on it must be public.
Re: (Score:2)
Open courts are. Trial by media is not. If you want to go to the court, go to the court. That doesn't mean you should plaster the name of a person all over the public record, and a ban on media publishing doesn't make the court itself less open. It does however reduce that bizarre American practice where being through the courts ruins the rest of your life.
Re: The idiots? (Score:5, Insightful)
The police did not release their names. Further the news outlets that published their names are now going to find themselves paying large amount of compensation to the couple because disclosing the names of people being questioned by the police *IS* illegal in England unless the police name them which they did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know who did? Isn't it likely that someone was paid off for the name(s)?...even maybe some officers?
Re: (Score:2)
They were caught breaking the law.
No they weren't, which is precisely why they were released without charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that that's true, that they were perfectly innocent. Neither the article nor the police are clear on that. Was the drone theirs? Do they even own a drone? Did the police or anyone else ever find the drone or other potential owners?
Imagine the expense of that airport being shut down like that, the inconvenience (and sometimes downright distress) for all the passengers, etc. Someone needs to be punished for it, no question, but no question it should be someone guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
They were released without charge. That means there is no evidence against them. Seriously.
Re: So do most Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Shotguns lack the range or accuracy.
To judge from the high death toll from vigilantes killing bystanders, so do many American gun owners.
No American I'd trust with a gun, and there are a few, would willingly fire off rounds at a tiny moving drone next to an aircraft filled with passengers and fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shotguns lack the range or accuracy."
Which is a good thing for this application. Assuming the craft in this instance (and assuming there was an actual incident to begin with) were relatively standard consumer grade drones they would be unable to resist even basic bird-shot. Bird-shot is so widely used for hunting birds BECAUSE its pattern spreads out increasing the chances of hitting the target and upon coming back down to the ground it is relatively harmless due to its fairly low terminal velocity. If
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever used a shotgun on aerial targets? Have you ever been hit by shot from someone who has?
While range is limited, accuracy and danger are not a problem. Falling shot which would be suitable for a drone reaches a low terminal velocity before reaching the ground. I have used target ranges which were *under* the falling shot from a skeet range and at most it was mildly annoying and no more hazardous than sporadic heavy rain.
Re: (Score:2)
The drones are flying withing 50 feet of jet engines at maximum power. Does the initial velocity of the lead pellets now flying directly into the turbine matter?
News at 11, after the memorial service.
Re: (Score:2)
The drones are flying withing 50 feet of jet engines at maximum power. Does the initial velocity of the lead pellets now flying directly into the turbine matter?
News at 11, after the memorial service.
Well then it is too bad there were so many jet engines operating that the drones were never more than 50 feet from them.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you also have brooms and are quick enough on your feet to run out and check for debris and clear a whole runway in 90 seconds**, plus taxi ways...
The knee jerk response of "I've got a gun and will use it in any circumstance" doesn't help when known, well documented cases of ground debris being sucked into aero engines has caused catastrophe.
I am, of course, flattering you that you're a perfect shot. Airports are busy, crowded places and Gatwick in particular has a motorway running along one side and