Gatwick drones -what utter stupidity and selfishness

[Kim]

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.

Indeed.  Terrorism seems to be about direct and dramatic threat to life.  The usual terror suspects have proven to be averse to mere disruption (even that which would likely result in deaths, such as a coordinated attack on the electricity grid).  Hence the fascination with aeroplanes, rather than easier targets.

Obviously preventing planes from flying in a way that makes future air travel appear less convenient, but doesn't directly harm anyone, would suit those with an environmental agenda.  As an environmental protest I think it's a pretty clever one, though I'm sceptical that that's what this is.

[Wowbagger]

Of course, that doesn't mean that our disingenuous government won't move the goalposts regarding the definition of terrorism. See The Stansted 15.

[Kim]

Of course, that doesn't mean that our disingenuous government won't move the goalposts regarding the definition of terrorism. See The Stansted 15.

Yes, I fully expect a similar level of book-throwing.  Somewhat more legally justifiable in this case.

[Wowbagger]

[Jaded]

Of course, that doesn't mean that our disingenuous government won't move the goalposts regarding the definition of terrorism. See The Stansted 15.

If it does turn out to be ISIS or similar, how should it be dealt with. Some community service?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Wasn't terrorism recently redefined in legal terms to include threats to property, specifically in order to include things like this? Or was that only in the USA?

Of course, that doesn't mean that our disingenuous government won't move the goalposts regarding the definition of terrorism. See The Stansted 15.

If it does turn out to be ISIS or similar, how should it be dealt with. Some community service?

Depends on what they were doing. So far they haven't endangered anyone. If they wanted to crash a plane with a drone they'd surely make the drone as hard to detect as possible and aim it at something vital like an engine or cockpit window. So, in the absence of an established motive, should shutting down an airport – or any other act – be sentenced differently if the culprits are ISIS or Joe and Jane Blogs out for a shit and a giggle? Of course it might turn out that this was in order to gather intelligence for an attack of some other sort on Gatwick, but so far, that's only speculation.

[Kim]

If they wanted to crash a plane with a drone they'd surely make the drone as hard to detect as possible and aim it at something vital like an engine or cockpit window.

I reckon that would be extremely hard to do.  I mean, they're reasonably stealthy as it is, but targeting a vulnerable part of a fast-moving aircraft with a slow-moving drone would be difficult to accomplish manually, and if you go to the effort of incorporating a proper targeting system, you might as well throw in an explosive warhead to increase the efficacy.  Then there's a strong argument for ditching the buzzy bits in favour of a rocket motor, at which point you've got a surface-to-air missile and if you've got the resources to develop one of *those*, you can probably buy one that works off the shelf from your local shady arms dealer.

At risk of illuminating the purple light at GCHQ, If I wanted to attack a plane with a drone, I'd use it to deliver an incendiary device while it was on the ground.  Other suitable targets left as an exercise for the reader.

[andrewc]

If they wanted to crash a plane with a drone they'd surely make the drone as hard to detect as possible and aim it at something vital like an engine or cockpit window.

At risk of illuminating the purple light at GCHQ, If I wanted to attack a plane with a drone, I'd use it to deliver an incendiary device while it was on the ground.  Other suitable targets left as an exercise for the reader.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a27511/russia-drone-thermite-grenade-ukraine-ammo/


Allegedly a drone attack.

[bobb]

At risk of illuminating the purple light at GCHQ, If I wanted to attack a plane with a drone, I'd use it to deliver an incendiary device while it was on the ground.  Other suitable targets left as an exercise for the reader.

I love the fact that you have spent time (no matter how little of it) considering the best way to trash a plane 

[Panoramix]

My former employer has already abandoned the abseilers on the platforms and moved to drones for inspection a while ago.

I've seen that as well, and I think for inspection of pipes, structures etc, its great, particularly from the point of view of risk to the inspection crew. Allows quick identification of where detailed inspection is required.

However, I'm not doing an inspection, I'm auditing management systems, which needs me to both see what's happening on the ground, and talk to the folks who are doing it there and then.

Most internal meetings I do remotely, I don't think I've been into the office in the last six months.

Have a local office with people living in the right country.

Envoyé de mon Action-X3 en utilisant Tapatalk

[Kim]

At risk of illuminating the purple light at GCHQ, If I wanted to attack a plane with a drone, I'd use it to deliver an incendiary device while it was on the ground.  Other suitable targets left as an exercise for the reader.

I love the fact that you have spent time (no matter how little of it) considering the best way to trash a plane 

Inspired by Londo Mollari, obviously.  Although that strategy didn't work out so well for him in the end.

[Panoramix]

If they wanted to crash a plane with a drone they'd surely make the drone as hard to detect as possible and aim it at something vital like an engine or cockpit window.

I reckon that would be extremely hard to do.  I mean, they're reasonably stealthy as it is, but targeting a vulnerable part of a fast-moving aircraft with a slow-moving drone would be difficult to accomplish manually, and if you go to the effort of incorporating a proper targeting system, you might as well throw in an explosive warhead to increase the efficacy.  Then there's a strong argument for ditching the buzzy bits in favour of a rocket motor, at which point you've got a surface-to-air missile and if you've got the resources to develop one of *those*, you can probably buy one that works off the shelf from your local shady arms dealer.

At risk of illuminating the purple light at GCHQ, If I wanted to attack a plane with a drone, I'd use it to deliver an incendiary device while it was on the ground.  Other suitable targets left as an exercise for the reader.

Anybody with a basic workshop and able to Google pulsejet could make some rockety things fly.

Envoyé de mon Action-X3 en utilisant Tapatalk

[Cudzoziemiec]

I agree, but it wouldn't do them any good for us to delete the photo, as it's still up on dozens of national and local news sites. Nevertheless, we strive for excellence rather than normality.

[rogerzilla]

Links deleted.

[ian]

It's a reminder that I think people should be granted anonymity till found guilty of a charge, though the legal establishment evidently disagrees with me.

Anyway, my money is on disgruntled nimbys, the sort that buy a house by an airport and are surprised to find that big noisy things are flying overhead.

[Vernon]

My money is on the authorities in a ruse to get civilian drone usage banned.

[Jurek]

My money is on the authorities in a ruse to get civilian drone usage banned.

Proper konspiraci.

[Clare]

I still reckon it was a bunch of yooves twatting about.

[Kim]

I see the police were suggesting (in a manner akin to Theresa May first mentioning the possibility of no brexit) that there may not have been a drone at all.

He said there was no available footage of the drones and police were relying on witness accounts.

He added there was "always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place", but they were working on a range of information from members of the public, police officers and staff working at Gatwick who had reported otherwise.

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615


Well-aimed hoax, conspiracy or mass hysteria?  Place your bets...

[Jurek]

I see the police were suggesting (in a manner akin to Theresa May first mentioning the possibility of no brexit) that there may not have been a drone at all.

He said there was no available footage of the drones and police were relying on witness accounts.

He added there was "always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place", but they were working on a range of information from members of the public, police officers and staff working at Gatwick who had reported otherwise.

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615


Well-aimed hoax, conspiracy or mass hysteria?  Place your bets...

The headless chicken option is a strong one...........

[Kim]

Why did the chicken cross the runway?

[ian]

Actually, I'm changing my vote to the 'there was no drone' and it's one of the 'big cat' style things. They never found the Beast of Sydenham either.

[Jurek]

Actually, I'm changing my vote to the 'there was no drone' and it's one of the 'big cat' style things. They never found the Beast of Sydenham either.

The beast of Sydenham is my mate, Simon.
He lives in Byne Road.
Why did the chicken cross the runway?
The answer is 47 and blue.
As you were.

[Kim]

Actually, I'm changing my vote to the 'there was no drone' and it's one of the 'big cat' style things. They never found the Beast of Sydenham either.

Mine too.  And I'm going to go a step further and suggest that it will still be used as an excuse to install - at great expense - marginally effective anti-drone security theatre.

[ian]

Yes, of course, large sums will now be spent on dubious technological solutions. No drone or operator will ever be found (seriously, there must hundreds of crashed drones littering the countryside, I've certainly found a few).