Gatwick drones -what utter stupidity and selfishness

[perpetual dan]

The perfect date for a repeat has to be 1st April.

This felt like a pretty plausible bit of dress rehersal for no-deal Brexit day.

[Basil]

I'll take that with a pinch of salt. They might have a good guess at the background of the perps but I reckon they're just trying to spook them into stopping.

Arrests have now been made.

I can't help but think that they have paved the way for others.

My guess is that the original perps stopped, and the second brief occurrence was a copycat job. Not as clever at hiding their location.  Second lot nicked.  Original lot still at large.

Maybe.

[Kim]

https://road.cc/content/news/253705-gatwick-drone-suspects-hid-plain-sight-riding-bikes-and-wearing-hi-vis

[andrewc]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/gatwick-drone-identities-arrested-couple-revealed/

[bludger]

[Cudzoziemiec]

 :DBldgr. (but weren't there actually two drones?)

[Séamas M.]

You know how thick that concrete is?  It would take a massive Kaboom to damage that seriously. 

Much more effective to scatter FOD on the runway, or disrupt the fuel services

Bits of shot down drone could be large enough FOD to cause serious damage. It was a relatively small piece from an earlier aircraft that started the problems for the Air France Concorde.

[ElyDave]

You know how thick that concrete is?  It would take a massive Kaboom to damage that seriously. 

Much more effective to scatter FOD on the runway, or disrupt the fuel services

Bits of shot down drone could be large enough FOD to cause serious damage. It was a relatively small piece from an earlier aircraft that started the problems for the Air France Concorde.

kind of makes my point, FOD is the danger, and much more likely than blowing a hole in the runway.

[spesh]

Drone - Quick sale, cash needed for fake passport or defence lawyer for sale in Bristol on Facebook Marketplace

Slight damage but flys well (as seen on tv). Battery lasts for roughly 16 hours. Slight damage, but works fine. Can deliver in 5years or so.

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/367303647179227/?ref=product_details

[Morat]

I think we should be realistic about shooting down drones.

Shotguns are short range scatter weapons, you have to be stood in the same field as the pheasant or drone to actually get one of the pellets to hit it. It seems the operator of this drone was smart enough to have it moving around from location to location before anyone got within range of the same field.

Longer range you have the other end of the scale, a marksman with a sniper rifle. Range can exceed two miles but by then you are looking at a small fast moving target through an eyescope on full zoom with variable winter wind conditions. It's possible to hit a human under such conditions like they do in the movies but that is quite large and slow moving in comparison to a drone.

In the middle you have a soldier with an SA80 assault rifle. Very well trained and accurate but only slightly longer range than the shotgun with a standard plain sight and an eyeball. He or she stands absolutely no chance of hitting such a thing other than by filling the sky with lead and hoping the drone flies into it. Hence the police not wanting to consider such an option in open public areas.

This is all true. If a drone came within 50m of a shotgun it would be toast but it doesn't need to even descend below that height to deny the runway. Rifles are not practical for flying targets and anything with a proximity fuse is going to be very unpopular near an airport.

[Morat]

You know how thick that concrete is?  It would take a massive Kaboom to damage that seriously. 

Much more effective to scatter FOD on the runway, or disrupt the fuel services

Bits of shot down drone could be large enough FOD to cause serious damage. It was a relatively small piece from an earlier aircraft that started the problems for the Air France Concorde.

Hmm, that was a titanium strip which was bent into such an unfortunate angle it managed to cut through Concorde's tyre*. I can't see any drone parts being up to that. The greater worry is what a decent sized Li-ION battery could do if it was somehow launched through a plane windscreen.

*this was the original verdict. Later revisions include overweight takeoff, missing shims in the bogie which caused a dramatic swing to the right forcing an early take-off and possibly a fatal CoG shift aft once the fuel tank was punctured. Fascinating, if tragic

[Ben T]

Conspiracy theory: wonder if they were selling their house? Fed up of prospective buyers hearing plane noise and losing interest.

[TheLurker]

The thing that intrigues me are the ages of the alleged offenders.  I was expecting it to be young environmental hot-heads in their twenties.  Instead it seems to be a couple of middle aged types.  ...

"Dammit Muriel! These bally tourists make a rotten din all day every day quite ruining things for decent quiet-living sorts.  It's high time someone did something about it."

"Yes dear. Now;  why don't you finish your breakfast and then write a strongly-worded letter of complaint to the chap who runs the aerodrome?  Oh and you could go out and play with that new flying toy of yours afterwards, that always relaxes you."

[Jurek]

My gut feeling is that its not them, and they'll shortly be released without charge.

[andytheflyer]

The thing that intrigues me are the ages of the alleged offenders.  I was expecting it to be young environmental hot-heads in their twenties.  Instead it seems to be a couple of middle aged types.  ...

Let's hope that they don't now re-visit the new drone regs in a knee-jerk reaction and throw out the agreed exemptions for genuine model flyers.....  Fingers crossed.....

[Jaded]

Released without charge.

[Jurek]

Released without charge.

Bingo!


Perhaps more interestingly, whoever it was, is still out there. Without stating the obvs.

[De Sisti]

My immediate thought when I saw a photo of them on a Kent local newspaper website was "Bloody hell! What has Oscar's Dad done to his hair?"

As they have been released without charge perhaps you should delete the photograph.
I feel sorry for them in a way, because there may be vigilanties (who were possibly affected
by the flights delay) thinking, "There's no smoke without fire", wanting to inflict
some sort of retribution on them.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The thing that intrigues me are the ages of the alleged offenders.  I was expecting it to be young environmental hot-heads in their twenties.  Instead it seems to be a couple of middle aged types.  ...

"Dammit Muriel! These bally tourists make a rotten din all day every day quite ruining things for decent quiet-living sorts.  It's high time someone did something about it."

"Yes dear. Now;  why don't you finish your breakfast and then write a strongly-worded letter of complaint to the chap who runs the aerodrome?  Oh and you could go out and play with that new flying toy of yours afterwards, that always relaxes you."

Environmental hot heads was, I think, the general first assumption, but the lack of any claim makes it seem less likely. OTOH it went on too long to be just for the lolz, I think. And no obvious terrorist link. Perhaps it was just a dress rehearsal for something bigger at multiple airports?

[TheLurker]

The thing that intrigues me are the ages of the alleged offenders.  I was expecting it to be young environmental hot-heads in their twenties.  Instead it seems to be a couple of middle aged types.  ...

Let's hope that they don't now re-visit the new drone regs in a knee-jerk reaction and throw out the agreed exemptions for genuine model flyers.....  Fingers crossed.....

Yes. That thought crossed my mind as well.

[Jaded]

I'm not sure how they can say there's no obvious terrorist link, apart from the fact they haven't had an "I dun that!" claim, or a culprit.

[Jurek]

It has been mentioned elsewhere that this could've been a practice run for something much more substantial.

[Jaded]

A set of terrorists at every airport would be a plan. Very low cost and apparently quite low risk to perps.

[Wowbagger]

I wouldn't call that terrorism. A massive pain in the arse to those who want to fly, but hardly a risk to life if the airport/airlines keep to their high safety standards.

I'm not 100% sure that they would, though, if Teh Authorities were unable to contain it. ISTR that when the air was full of ash when an unpronounceable volcano erupted that after a while they started flying again anyway.

[Kim]

ISTR that when the air was full of ash when an unpronounceable volcano erupted that after a while they started flying again anyway.

I think that was more a case of once they could be reasonably confident that the bits of air that weren't full of ash were going to stay clear of ash for long enough that nobody would end up flying through it.