Over 110,000 Passengers on 760 Flights Disrupted by Drones Flying Over One of the UK's Busiest Airports (bbc.com) 196
Gatwick's runway has been shut since Wednesday night, when two devices were seen flying over the perimeter fence. The airport said at about 12:00 GMT on Thursday a drone had been spotted "in the last hour" and the runway would not open "until it was safe to do so". From a report: About 110,000 passengers on 760 flights were due to fly on Thursday. Disruption could last "several days". Those due to travel have been told to check the status of their flight, while Easyjet told its passengers not to go to Gatwick if their flights have been cancelled. Sussex Police said it was not terror-related but a "deliberate act" of disruption, describing the drones as of "industrial specification". The shutdown started just after 21:00 GMT on Wednesday, when two drones were spotted flying "over the perimeter fence and into where the runway operates from". The runway briefly reopened at 03:01 but was closed again about 45 minutes later amid "a further sighting of drones".
Brilliant attack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody gets injured, but you shut down the airport for fear of people being injured. If you use autonomous pre-programed GPS based drones, there isn't even necessarily a radio signal to trace back to the person who launched the drone, potentially from several miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody get injured until one of them slips by the cracks and gets jammed in an engine while trying to take off or land.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that all passenger aircraft can handle a single engine failure during takeoff. Landing is even less of a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Is a drone with motor and batteries substantially more likely to take out more than one engine? I suppose there's a question of direct impact with the wing, where the mass and durability of the drone is likely to do more damage than a goose - but enough to severely compromise the structural integrity or flight characteristics beyond what a hydraulics failure would cause?
Re: (Score:2)
Good video, thanks.
Not good, but not likely to kill anyone either. Of course, that was just a small consumer drone - something substantially larger could be far more dangerous, and there's always the possibility that it's loaded with impact explosives, which could make things much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
That's rather the point though, isn't it? The drones present a clear and present threat of extensive economic damage, and possible injuries or deaths, while offering very little threat of actual deaths. And flying through such a region is obviously dangerous, deflecting a large share of responsibility (and outrage) over any incidents onto the airline who chose to do so.
They've managed to shut down a major transportation hub during a high-traffic period, inflicting substantial financial costs, without inju
Re: (Score:2)
For those reasons, my bet is either hostile state actors (Russia, North Korea) or Extinction Rebellion.
Re: (Score:2)
If "Extinction Rebellion" were responsible for this denial of service attack they could very well find themselves becomming their own name. The British public dislike plonkers who mess up their hollidays even more than people who ban bendy banana's. You have been warned drone people, you are becoming a nusiance that guarantees your message will be firmly rejected if you have one other than "Look at me, I am a plonker".
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you shut down the airport to prevent such a problem, which was the point. And I assume that they have to assume that in an intentional denial of service attack like this, the drones would be programmed to *try* to get sucked into an engine, so shutting the airport down is an entirely reasonable precaution.
I mean seriously - what sort of idiot would even try to fly through such an airspace denial zone outside of an armed conflict?
Re: (Score:2)
If you use autonomous pre-programed GPS based drones, there isn't even necessarily a radio signal to trace back to the person who launched the drone, potentially from several miles away.
No. That is how the Iranians took down a drone. Fake GPS signals. Use gyroscopic navigation. Rely on nothing external.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt that. Industrial drones are _expensive_.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt that. Industrial drones are _expensive_.
and? that is exactly why they will be much easier to track down.
Re: (Score:2)
And this single drone can shut down an airport for hours resulting in tens of millions of dollars (pounds) lost in delayed and cancelled flights.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like someone trying to force the regulators hand. What better way to prompt regulation than fucking with the second largest airport in the UK at one of the busiest times of the year.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sounds like someone trying to force the regulators hand. What better way to prompt regulation than fucking with the second largest airport in the UK at one of the busiest times of the year.
Could be.
Or could be the Peaceful Worldview That Must Not Be Named ... if they can plant sleepers and train them as pilots and have them take over airplanes and fly them into things, they can probably manage a couple of drones ...
Re:Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My view of the average person combined with Occam's razor says this probably isn't a scheme by a nefarious group hellbent on destruction, and is more likely just some random asshole who thinks he's absolutely *hilarious*. You know, like those folks who shine lasers at airplanes.
Its gone on far too long for that.
Its far more likely to be someone with a serious grudge against Gatwick Airport or one of the major airlines running out of Gatwick like EasyJet, BA or Ryanair... So that shortens the list of suspects to most people in Southern England.
It doesn't seem political as no statements or demands have been made but it is obviously deliberate and planned.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's a test of the military's anti-drone capabilities under low-stakes conditions. They've now predictably been called in, and we'll see how well they do at actually eliminating the threat.
Seems like this sort of attack could be relatively easy to keep up for a long time - just have some guys driving around releasing fully autonomous radio-silenced drones as fast as they get brought down. Even with ubiquitous surveillance it would likely take a long time to identify them, and a well-organized and well-
Re: (Score:2)
My view of the average person combined with Occam's razor says this probably isn't a scheme by a nefarious group hellbent on destruction, and is more likely just some random asshole who thinks he's absolutely *hilarious*.
As a Brit myself, I will have to agree that... that seems like a very British thing to do. It may not even that he thought it was hilarious- he probably just wanted to see if he could shut down the airport that way and this was all about his curiosity.
Re: (Score:2)
I took the OP to be saying that the government was doing it so they had an excuse to increase their powers. Here in the US, the FAA keeps trying to get people to register drones, require GPSs on them, or outright ban them, even though it is obvious that such things that will do nothing to prevent crime since criminals will simply not register them and/or turn off the GPS.
Re: Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:2)
Why would Theresa May be flying drones?
Re:Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:5, Insightful)
If the master race can steal explosives, manufacture a 7,000 pound bomb and detonate it next to a building, they can probably manage a couple of drones.
Re: Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:2)
Only ones that sound like they're saying ommmm.
Re: (Score:2)
I think for a lot of people who feel in general powerless find some comfort that they were able to make actions positive or negative that got some notice. "I was able to stop the Airport alone with my skills" probably gives the person a false sense of empowerment.
It is a lot like graffiti from kids, they just like seeing a mark, that everyone sees and knows, "I was the one that put it there"
Sure there is a lot of meaningful attacks that has a purpose, but there is so many people who feel unappropriated that
Why false? (Score:4, Insightful)
"I was able to stop the Airport alone with my skills" probably gives the person a false sense of empowerment.
In what way is that false? The effect is very real, and probably a lot more than was imagined when the people sent in the drones (though honestly I think it more likely the drones were jus there to take video for fun).
Now that people know how easy it is to shut down an airport... well hang on folks, we are in for one rocky ride as the nutters seize on this as a way to use airports for political messaging.
In the end they are just going to have to learn to keep airports running despite "sightings of drones".
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That would also explain why there apparently was no real effort finding the drone-controllers.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't solve this problem with regulations, you solve it with countermeasures. Nets, RF jamming and even hawks have been successfully used to take drones down.
Consumer drones have been a known threat for many years now. Shutting down an entire airport can't possibly be cheaper than obtaining the equipment necessary to knock them out of the sky. It sounds like the airports are just not prepared to deal with the threat.
Re:Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like someone trying to force the regulators hand.
I think probably not. I mean it could be but on the one hand you've got someone being machevellian, on the other hand yu have a stupid action from a colossal army of fuckwits. My money is on the fuckwits, personally.
Defences, not regulations (Score:2)
What better way to prompt regulation...
There already are regulations making this highly illegal. If/when the operator is caught s/he will be going away for a long time. What this has highlighted is the need for suitable defences. The police apparently cannot shoot the drone down because they are worried about stray bullets. What is needed is some means to efficient means to disable a drone that is operating illegally. You can have all the regulations you want but there will always be some idiot willing to break them.
Re:Defences, not regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Airports already have hunters to shoot and scare flocks of birds. Just let them hunt drones too.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to shut down the airport and had no concerns for legality, they can use model rockets too. Hamas manages to build those despite the blockade and they can easily send Israel into lockdown.
What this has highlighted is the need for suitable defences.
What this highlights is a need for police to act quickly and arrest the person responsible. If you shoot down the drone but don't arrest them, they'll have a new, more sturdy drone next week. There are thousands of ways a person can interfere with airport operations. You can only prepare against so many before
Re: (Score:2)
What this highlights is a need for police to act quickly and arrest the person responsible.
Given the reports of the number of police deployed, including a police helicopter, I think they have tried this and it did not work. If you can disable and capture the drone though there will presumably be serial numbers on it which would help you track down the owner in addition to the benefit of reducing the disruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they deploy all that in 10 minutes? Or 2 hours later?
Your countermeasures won't work if the drone already left by the time you got there.
Re: Forcing the hammer to drop (Score:2)
Bear in mind the government is bitterly divided, wirh a third of MPs in the Tory party in open rebellion. Their majority is dependent on a group seeking to punish May over the backstop.
I see no chance of any such legislation going through, as it would be unpopular and there's likely to be an election soon.
Re: (Score:2)
"How would more regulation help" you all asked?
You're assuming I meant "more fines". I'm talking completely outlawed from sale and import unless you have a [$new_license_class] issued by the CAA, a commercial reason for the device, and are prepared to send all GPS positional logs back to the regulator at regular intervals for review.
Someone wants the hobby dead. Considering some of the dumb shit I have seen operators do, I'm not sure I blame them, and I say this has someone who flew RC fixed wing for years.
What radio frequency? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good chance they are on pre-programmed flight between GPS way points. Trivial to do with a uC and a vendetta.
Re:What radio frequency? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what radio frequency is used by the drone controllers? It would be simple to build a jamming transmitter that could disable the link between the pirate pilots and their drones. I know nothing about drones
We know you don't, because you don't even know they use spread-spectrum radio these days, and in spectrum you can't jam without causing problems for other users.
It might also be fun to build a directed EMP "weapon" that could be used to take them down when visually sighted.
If you could build one of those, every military on the planet would love to talk to you.
Re: (Score:3)
The responses here are hilarious. "Why don't the police just shoot the drone flying 400' up a mile away on the other side of the airport with a shotgun?" "Why don't they use their EMP weapons?" "Why don't they jam GPS?" "USE EAGLES!!!"
The lack of understanding of the size, scope, and both political and technical components of this problem are amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't the police just shoot the drone flying 400' up a mile away on the other side of the airport with a shotgun?
The bullets go up, who cares where they come down? "That's not my department" [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Raytheon has a technology already. High-energy directed microwaves. If these are industrial drones they should be large enough to detect and target within the 1KM perimeter allowed by British regulations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Hellloooo where is the anti-drone tech!? (Score:3)
Where are the control hijackers and the control triangulators and the GPS jammers and the laser weapons and the trained falcons and the dudes with shotguns loaded with birdshot!?!? How can this laughable shitshow go on for over 12 hours!?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps airports are hesitant to deploy lasers, or to interfere with radio communications in ways which could cause other problems, but anti-drone drones seem like the obvious solution here. Militaries already have licensed drone pilots, and employing them to down potentially hostile drones seems reasonable. It's better training than a sim...
Hilarious (Score:3)
DDOS even works for this.
Drone
Denial
Of
Service
Shoot the drones out of the sky? (Score:2)
I'm surprised that they delay flights for 6 hours and more because of two drones. I understand that they delay flights, but I'd expect them to take out those drones as soon as possible. If they can't do that, that's rather a big vulnerability.
I know the Dutch police has worked on using trained eagles to take out drones (by far the most bad-ass solution to the problem). I've also heard of using some sort of jammer or directed electromagnetic pulse to disrupt drone. But even a well-aimed bullet should solve t
Re: (Score:2)
It would be possible to shoot down the drones. I am sure that would be the chosen approach in the US. However, in the UK, authorities are reluctant to shoot live ammunition into the air over heavily populated areas. They place high priority on preventing unnecessary loss of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a universal opinion. See this explanation. [forbes.com]
Re:Shoot the drones out of the sky? (Score:5, Informative)
... But even a well-aimed bullet should solve the problem. ...
It's impossible to consistently hit an erratically moving small target at range with a bullet. Phalanx CIWS systems do it with bursts of 20mm machine gun fire, and that would cause casualties if done over populated areas. Shotguns don't have the range. Air burst flak shells could work, but that would mean firing explosive munitions at low altitudes over a populated area.
My concern about using the eagles is the risk of injury to the eagles.
Directed energy is probably the best option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Effective range on a shotgun is well under 100 meters. Bird shot is effective on ducks only out to about 35 meters. Lacking an comparative test I expect effectiveness against drones is about the same. Buckshot may be able to damage a drone at somewhat longer range, but with fewer pellets per shot it would be harder to score a hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the CRAM is a phalanx CIWS modified for use over land and built up area. It uses self destructing rounds. They destroy the round at the top of the trajectory causing it to fall as relatively harmless metal hail. Was deployed throughout Iraq and Afghanistan to counter insurgent mortars and Rockets. The problem? Each round costs something like$50, so at 3000 rounds per minute it gets expensive, fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Directed energy is probably the best option.
And now more feasible than ever. Drones typically accept control signals at 2.4 GHz, which means the directed energy weapon in question would be a maser. The best way to shoot down an aircraft with directed energy is to hit a receiving antenna, frying the on board electronics. Conveniently enough, work out of Imperial College London, published in March 2018 [sciencealert.com], documents the creation of the highest energy maser ever created, more than 100 million times more energy than previous masers, which output in the n
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that they delay flights, but I'd expect them to take out those drones as soon as possible. If they can't do that, that's rather a big vulnerability.
You shoot down a drone and call it a day. How did you know you got them all? This was a quite serious event where a repeated drone sighting happened after the news that the airport was already shut and a police operation was underway. Sounds like someone may be doing something on purpose? And yeah it's a huge vulnerability. If you think just because there's a little fence around an airport means they are secure then you've got it quite wrong.
I know the Dutch police has worked on using trained eagles to take out drones (by far the most bad-ass solution to the problem).
Nope, they tried, they failed. The program ended a year ago as it
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that they delay flights for 6 hours and more because of two drones. I understand that they delay flights, but I'd expect them to take out those drones as soon as possible. If they can't do that, that's rather a big vulnerability.
I know the Dutch police has worked on using trained eagles to take out drones (by far the most bad-ass solution to the problem). I've also heard of using some sort of jammer or directed electromagnetic pulse to disrupt drone. But even a well-aimed bullet should solve the problem.
Also, weren't drones supposed to be limited through software so that they can only fly where they're allowed to?
This article [theregister.co.uk] covers why all of those won't work or are too dangerous to try. Even the bird of prey option; yes the Dutch tried it but discontinued it (TL;DR too expensive, complicated and unreliable).
RIdiculous! (Score:2)
Here in the U.S., it's getting harder and harder to enjoy flying a drone as a hobby, thanks to the combination of paranoia over drones and the legitimate problem of people flying them in places they obviously shouldn't be flying (around airports, for example!).
It's gotten so you can't even legally use one, period, if you live in Washington DC. They've marked off the entire area as restricted airspace for them.
And as a DJI Mavic Pro owner myself, one of my first thoughts was, "Well, surely I can take one of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
" That's where everyone went to fly kites back when I was a kid. Lots of open space and often some good scenery worth capturing on video during a flight." But no! So many of the State and National parks are starting to ban drone usage too!"
A large field with 20 or 30 kites is fun for everyone, the fliers, the people walking by, etc.
A large field with 20 or 30 drones is not. It sounds like a dirtbike in the sky, which scares the birds, and generally annoys the other park goers.
The RC aircraft people; and the model rocket people... never were a problem like this. First they were a lot rarer. The hobby was moderately expensive; and it required some actual skill and practice both to maintain the craft and to fly it, they only ever operated in bi
Re: (Score:2)
Except for coordinated events like "drone races" held at specific places, I've *never* seen drones just littering the sky by the dozens!
The reality is, the radio signals alone tend to limit how many can be operated well in a given space. I'm not going to even attempt to keep flying my drone if 12 other people, often flying other DJI branded products, are nearby with other ones! Too easy to lose control of it.
It saddens me that people can't seem to use common sense anymore. I mean, we're complaining that t
Re: (Score:2)
" I've *never* seen drones just littering the sky by the dozens!"
As soon as their popularity started taking off everywhere started banning them. Even one operating nearby is annoyng. 4 or 5 within earshot is obnoxious.
" I'm not going to even attempt to keep flying my drone if 12 other people, often flying other DJI branded products, are nearby with other ones! Too easy to lose control of it."
Well I'm so glad you are one of the responsible drone owners who only wants to fly over crowds in town during a parad
Re: (Score:2)
If my dad was still alive to see this, I'm sure he'd be really agitated about all the regulations. He grew up building gasoline powered model airplanes and later, got his pilot's license
Well that's the thing isn't it. In your dad's era it wasn't a game for weekend warriors. It required a lot of time, knowledge and money to engage in the hobby. Even if you bought an off the shelf plane, chances are you'd still spend a lot of time fixing and modifying it.
And then there's learning to fly and land. Those things
re: cost and difficulty (Score:2)
I wouldn't say the drones worth flying, today, are exactly cheap. Yes, they're smart enough to make takeoff and landing a "no brainer". Way easier than the R/C stuff of the past.
But you're still usually putting out around a $1000 investment by the time you buy your drone accessories and the drone itself. The real cheap stuff out there doesn't even have enough battery life to be relevant. Those are just toys to fly around your house for 5 minutes at a time, basically.
Considering the risk of your $600-120
Re: (Score:2)
So if nobody had spotted them... (Score:2)
... everything would have continued to be safe?
And in actual reality, things were just as safe as normal the whole time, just some fear-mongers and people that what to inflate their own perceived importance saw an opportunity.
Re:So if nobody had spotted them... (Score:5, Informative)
Safe up until a drone gets sucked into a passenger jet's engine, killing a couple hundred people when it crashes. All because some jackass doesn't have the common sense to avoid airports with his drone.
This is why we can't have nice things... idiots who can't be bothered to think about anyone except themselves. Especially assholes who are doing shit like this "for the lulz" like this incident appears to be.
Tiny drones do not crash airliners (Score:2)
Might possibly scratch the paint.
A really big drone (not consumer) might take out an engine. But even taking out both engines should not crash the plane if the pilots can competently glide back.
Now, a Canada goose with an incompetent pilot is a different matter. But they do not shut down airports for many hours every time a sparrow is seen flying near by.
This is almost certainly hyped up nonsense. A complete overreaction from incompetent bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:2)
... everything would have continued to be safe?
Yes, and the world is cooling because Trump stuck his head in the sand and went lalala.
In other news Terrorists don't exist if you close your eyes.
Windows doesn't suck if you don't turn on your computer.
And gun violence in America stops being a problem when Google changed the gun emoji.
Interesting question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody minds them shooting birds with shotguns...
Birdshot has far less range than a rifle bullet. I doubt the shot even exceeds the outer perimeter of the airfield. A rifle bullet, on the other hand, would be lethal out to ~1500 yards[0], and probably capable of traveling considerably farther.[1]
Shooting drones with rifles is an exceptionally difficult task, and exceptionally dangerous...
m
0. Or meters, go be pedantic somewhere else
1. Calibre dependent, of course
Oh bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing two very crucial things. 1) Nothing in British law, nor in any western laws I'm aware of, allow civil entities to engage in radioelectronic combat, and their radiotelephony laws blatantly prohibit such attacks. 2) None of the hard kill approaches are legal, nor are they ethical over populated areas. 3) a fucking net over the airport? You're retarded.
The real answer is to publicly hang the assholes who did this (unless they have brown skin, then deny it happened)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's talking about civil entities? I'd be very surprised if an international airport did not have access to armed guards. In those 6 hours, there's even plenty of time to wake up a specialised police or military unit to take out that drone.
Re: (Score:3)
These were apparently commercial programmable drones capable of operating without radio control.
That aside, RC copters are a subset of 'drones' so stop being a cock.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:4, Funny)
You'd prefer to hear some more boring stories about tunnels?
Re: (Score:2)
Bad joke! Bad! No cookie for you!
Re: (Score:3)
Pffft. Do I look like a browser?
Re: (Score:2)
I present the DroneCatcher.
It's a drone used to seek other drones and uses a net to disable them.
The website is slow as hell:
https://dronecatcher.nl/ [dronecatcher.nl]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That will be delayed pretty much until drones are an _actual_ danger. That has not happened yet. At the moment it is basically fear of the unknown (birds are a real danger, but nobody seems to care), and fear-mongering for political reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Directed microwaves. Best overall option.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they could be shot down with rifles but the public wouldn't like the stray bullets
Shotguns would make more sense.
Perhaps there'll be "drone shot" one day, to go along with the bird and buck varieties.
Shotguns face more regulation in most countries- it's only in the US that drones are more heavily regulated than shotguns.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but you would expect the Sussex Police forces Tactical Firearms Unit (the ones in which Gatwick resides) to have access to shotguns.
Attempting to shot them down with pistols or rifles would be stupid, but you would have thought they would have broken out the shotguns by now
Re: (Score:2)
True, but you would expect the Sussex Police forces Tactical Firearms Unit (the ones in which Gatwick resides) to have access to shotguns.
Actually you would not expect that. European police forces usually don't use shot guns, no idea about the brits in particular, though.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but you would expect the Sussex Police forces Tactical Firearms Unit (the ones in which Gatwick resides) to have access to shotguns.
Attempting to shot them down with pistols or rifles would be stupid, but you would have thought they would have broken out the shotguns by now
Whether or not they currently have shotguns or not, I don't know. I'm not sure that shotguns are useful for most policing applications. I'm sure they could procure them in the future if they needed them though.
More useful, if drones become a persistent problem would be a drone gun. There have been several developed that work like an EMP gun from science fiction... basically using pulse of radiowaves to damage the sensitive electronic equipment on a drone. They can knock the drones out the sky without wo
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't have shot guns then surely a quick call to one of the local clay pigeon shooting clubs would have got experienced shooters quite quickly.
Seems though they have called the army in now. However quite why they did not do that at 09:00 this morning god only knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Drone fighters (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to learn what shotguns are and how they work before putting stupid comments like this on the internet. Here's a hint: Check the effective range of a shotgun and then check how high these drones are flying, and consider how large the airport is.
You'd have been less wrong if you'd said, "sounds like the Sussex Police force needs an AA battery".
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have been less wrong if you'd said, "sounds like the Sussex Police force needs an AA battery".
Especially since this [spudfiles.com] is a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
How about tethered projectiles? Crossbow bolts, or arrows, perhaps? As long as the tether is strong enough to not be cut by the props (perhaps carbon+kevlar?) you won't even necessarily need a hit to down them, as long as you can either get a hit or intersect their flight path with your tether.
Re: (Score:2)
What goes around comes around (Score:2, Interesting)
The routine use of drones was initiated by the US government in the 1960s and 1970s. It was partly motivated by the realisation that the USSR could shoot down any aircraft - even a U-2 - and partly for reasons of cost and efficiency. Originally seen as ideal for reconnaissance and spying, they were soon modified to carry weapons.
For decades the US government was almost alone in its ability to deploy drones anywhere in the world, and thus to gain information - and optionally kill people and destroy buildings
Re: What goes around comes around (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"But terrorists can use this en masse remotely and in large numbers to effectively shut down air travel"
Terrorists aren't interested. If they wanted to disrupt air-traffic, a couple of calls with bomb threats will do the job much easier.
A disposable phone is cheaper than a drone and it can be used from anywhere in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Naaa, there is no political gain in claiming birds are a danger to planes. Especially because, unlike your average drone, birds _are_ a danger.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather live in a nanny state than one in which people can prevent me from travelling.
Except that the nanny state will prevent you from flying if they don't like your politics and place you on a secret list or even manufacture a reason to imprison you, the drone guy will just delay your travel at worst.
But extrapolating consequences more than a step or two ahead is *hard*.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
the drone guy will just delay your travel at worst
US Airways flight Cactus 1549 ingested birds into its engines and ditched in the Hudson River.
The risk is "drone guy" actually bringing your flight down, not inconveniencing your Disney holiday for a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Pesky nanny state, always trying to keep idiots alive.
Re: Nanny state (Score:2)
The US has banned innocent people on the grounds tgey have similar names to peiple who might possibly be terrirists but nobody is quite sure.
In comparison, no European country has banned or restricted anything like as many.
No, the so-called nanny states are a lot freer than the freedom-as-a-service states.
parser error (Score:2)
what is an "infliencd" ? I get "mattrt" through context.
The real "pussy" here is a turbine engine that can't handle a strike from a carbon fiber drone.