After a couple of reported sightings, any lights in the sky will become suspicious.
I understand why the police can't shoot them down with firearms, but spent air rifle pellets are not particularly dangerous.That’s not entirely true, which is why you can’t shoot them into the air with impunity. From an risk analysis POV it’s highly unlikely that a shot fired into the air will actually hit someone, but the amount of energy the projectile has if it does hit someone can only be calculated with lots of complex maths1 and a shed load of assumption. Who it hits, and where it hits them will also be a major element in the outcome.
I may be assuming too much too quickly about the motives of the drone operators, but I expect that a lot more airport disruption will be on the cards as Extinction Rebellion really takes off (if you'll pardon the pun).
Governments have done nothing to tackle the causes of climate change and people are taking the law into their own hands.
Whilst awaiting further developments, it might be worth considering putting this in POBI.
It won't help their cause.I may be assuming too much too quickly about the motives of the drone operators, but I expect that a lot more airport disruption will be on the cards as Extinction Rebellion really takes off (if you'll pardon the pun).
Governments have done nothing to tackle the causes of climate change and people are taking the law into their own hands.
Whilst awaiting further developments, it might be worth considering putting this in POBI.
It seems the Police agree with you..
"Sussex Police said it was not terror-related but a "deliberate act" of disruption."
It seems the Police agree with you..
"Sussex Police said it was not terror-related but a "deliberate act" of disruption."
Or eagles or something.
ETA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones
I'm surprised it's taken this long for the loons to realise just how cheaply and effectively you can totally fuck things up this way. The range on modern drones (easily 5km, maybe even 10km) is such that you're never going to get caught; massive disruption, no need to die, get away scot free - an anarchists dream.
It won't help their cause.
It won't help their cause.I may be assuming too much too quickly about the motives of the drone operators, but I expect that a lot more airport disruption will be on the cards as Extinction Rebellion really takes off (if you'll pardon the pun).
Governments have done nothing to tackle the causes of climate change and people are taking the law into their own hands.
Whilst awaiting further developments, it might be worth considering putting this in POBI.
It seems the Police agree with you..
"Sussex Police said it was not terror-related but a "deliberate act" of disruption."
Has anyone actually brought down a plane with a domestic drone yet, either accidentally or deliberately?
Extinction are holocentric.
Holocentric is a philosophical position which focuses on solutions as the outcome of human agency and on critical thinking.
...
...
As the community becomes more effective in the process of dialog, it may become more self-aware, and this ‘systemic’ heightening of awareness may lead to additional emergent properties which in turn may further increase the overall level of understanding and quality of the community response.
Of course, this proves you don't need to have a collision if your intent is merely to cause disruption...You don't even need a drone, a well trained flock of pigeons would do it! How long till pigeon racing attracts the attention of anti-terror cops?!
Has anyone actually brought down a plane with a domestic drone yet, either accidentally or deliberately?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAV-related_events#Verified_aircraft_collisions
A handful of incidents, none of which brought down the aircraft, and plenty of near-misses. I'm sure the effects of a drone collision are similar to a single large bird strike, in that in the absence of extremely bad luck the plane is likely to be able to make an emergency landing.
The thing that makes bird strikes really dangerous is when they come in flocks and damage multiple important bits of plane at the same time. Doing that with drones would be technically challenging and perhaps prohibitively expensive...
Of course, this proves you don't need to have a collision if your intent is merely to cause disruption...
;DIt won't help their cause.I may be assuming too much too quickly about the motives of the drone operators, but I expect that a lot more airport disruption will be on the cards as Extinction Rebellion really takes off (if you'll pardon the pun).
Governments have done nothing to tackle the causes of climate change and people are taking the law into their own hands.
Whilst awaiting further developments, it might be worth considering putting this in POBI.
It seems the Police agree with you..
"Sussex Police said it was not terror-related but a "deliberate act" of disruption."
Do Sussex Police have history doing this?
Of course, this proves you don't need to have a collision if your intent is merely to cause disruption...You don't even need a drone, a well trained flock of pigeons would do it! How long till pigeon racing attracts the attention of anti-terror cops?!
The thing that makes bird strikes really dangerous is when they come in flocks and damage multiple important bits of plane at the same time. Doing that with drones would be technically challenging and perhaps prohibitively expensive...
:thumbsup: ;D It's a logical extension of the Wacky Races road policing.Of course, this proves you don't need to have a collision if your intent is merely to cause disruption...You don't even need a drone, a well trained flock of pigeons would do it! How long till pigeon racing attracts the attention of anti-terror cops?!
Who'd then need to establish a crack team of anti-pigeon aviators...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6-LG5VpGk
https://youtu.be/sj6-LG5VpGk
Pissing off thousands of people at Christmas will get them less sympathy than someone with a "Free Rose West" collecting tin.
It won't help their cause.
That depends on how you identify their cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkQSGyeCWg
This lass is absolutely right. When the stakes are that high (and they are), anything goes.
A longer version of her speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A
And as for being "outcome focussed," it doesn't actually do anything to reduce demand for air transport.
Personally I want to know where they got their batteries from. The most I can get out of my drone is around 25 minutes before I have to return to base to swap out the batt.
Rachel Riley is stuck there!
To be fair to Extinction I am on their side. It is completely bonkers that a fuel guzzling and lung-rotting jumbo jet is cheaper to get to the country next door than the train and ferry.While I don't agree with jetting around just for a holiday, some people are trying to get to see family for a once a year (or once in every couple of years) occasion. They aren't travelling to a country 'next door' and train+ferry won't get them there in a time less than days.
there are actually no sensible trains because of engineering. Which is the same insufferable story every year. I'm not clear why it's acceptable but I guess passengers always come last on the railways.
The most damaging thing you can do, of course, is to have to children.
I haven't seen any explanation of why the airport is still closed. Are the drones still flying around? In which case they must have amazing battery life or be very well organized with relays of the things. Also, given it's reported they've brought the army in, how come they haven't just vaporized them?
I was thinking along those lines but wondered if there was something else or if the drone/s were still flying. I guess now the principle is proved, it'll happen at various times at various airports by protesters eco and political as well as various other nefarious reasons. Also just for the lolz, until someone accidentally causes a plane crash.I haven't seen any explanation of why the airport is still closed. Are the drones still flying around? In which case they must have amazing battery life or be very well organized with relays of the things. Also, given it's reported they've brought the army in, how come they haven't just vaporized them?
Presumably because they haven't caught anyone yet - there's too high a risk of them just coming back when they restart?
I was thinking along those lines but wondered if there was something else or if the drone/s were still flying. I guess now the principle is proved, it'll happen at various times at various airports by protesters eco and political as well as various other nefarious reasons. Also just for the lolz, until someone accidentally causes a plane crash.I haven't seen any explanation of why the airport is still closed. Are the drones still flying around? In which case they must have amazing battery life or be very well organized with relays of the things. Also, given it's reported they've brought the army in, how come they haven't just vaporized them?
Presumably because they haven't caught anyone yet - there's too high a risk of them just coming back when they restart?
Teleconferencing?
https://www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshireWeatherUpdates/photos/a.332763830176487/1968534806599373/?type=3&theaterMost Xlent :thumbsup:
Teleconferencing?Ahhh.... but whaddabout all those heeeyuge server farms converting vast quantities of energy from carbon based fuels into heat and CO2? Not forgetting the enormous amounts of hot air vented by jargon obsessed "management" types desperately trying to justify their place on the payroll.
This ^ is my preferred approach to conference calls.Teleconferencing?Ahhh.... but whaddabout all those heeeyuge server farms converting vast quantities of energy from carbon based fuels into heat and CO2? Not forgetting the enormous amounts of hot air vented by jargon obsessed "management" types desperately trying to justify their place on the payroll.
Ackherlee I disagree with Ian. Teleconferences are effing marvellous, esp. if you're working from home. Mute your mic. and turn down the volume on the headset earphones so it's not too intrusive but you'll be able to hear if someone asks you a question then switch on some pleasant music while leaning back and looking out of the window at the pretty little birdies. All the while being lulled to dreamland by the barely audible babbling in your earphones. Marvellous.
Or (and I have been known to do this) get on with some coding in what would otherwise be completely wasted time.
Either way I come out ahead.
Teleconferencing?
My practicable solution is that the cost of your air travel should internalise (at least in part) the environmental health impact and air travel be minimised and not seen as a staple essential. At the moment it is far far too cheap to fly. It's absurd and it's foisting dire health costs (short and long run) on the rest of the community. My point is not that all airports should close and everyone should use a windcheetah to get around, immediately, but this is a completely unsustainable situation that is killing people right now, and is on course to kill even more in decades to come.
Teleconferencing?
Practicable, audit of an oil refinery by VC?
Lady Sugg said: “We absolutely need to make sure that we introduce new laws to ensure that drones are used safely and responsibly. Earlier this year we brought in a law that makes it illegal to fly within a kilometre of an airport and above 400ft.- that's just madness ;D
Power distribution networks, banking and financial
trading systems, broadcasting and industrialcontrol networks all use GPS timing, making them
equally vulnerable to unintentional or deliberate
interference
A small jammer (Figure 2) can disrupt the GPS
signal for a mile or more.12
My former employer has already abandoned the abseilers on the platforms and moved to drones for inspection a while ago.
I think you've missed the point. Greta Thunberg represents millions of kids who are very aware of how we old buggers have freely trashed the planet. She's not after sympathy. She intends to get stuff done.Pissing off thousands of people at Christmas will get them less sympathy than someone with a "Free Rose West" collecting tin.
It won't help their cause.
That depends on how you identify their cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkQSGyeCWg
This lass is absolutely right. When the stakes are that high (and they are), anything goes.
A longer version of her speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A
I was thinking along those lines but wondered if there was something else or if the drone/s were still flying. I guess now the principle is proved, it'll happen at various times at various airports by protesters eco and political as well as various other nefarious reasons. Also just for the lolz, until someone accidentally causes a plane crash.I haven't seen any explanation of why the airport is still closed. Are the drones still flying around? In which case they must have amazing battery life or be very well organized with relays of the things. Also, given it's reported they've brought the army in, how come they haven't just vaporized them?
Presumably because they haven't caught anyone yet - there's too high a risk of them just coming back when they restart?
I seriously question just how much damage a drone could do, to be honest.
I once watched a documentary about aircraft engines. There was someone whose job it was, and I really envied this person, to fire dead chickens into jet engines running at full bore. It was awesome. There was a brief red plume out the back of the engine, and it merrily carried on engineing.
Of course - it would be pretty easy to weaponise a drone; reduce some of its weight, and replace with explosives. Maybe. I dunno - I'm not a terrorist. But I would like the job of firing dead chickens into jet engines.
Nah, don't buy it. I think factions inside the CAA sees this as a chance to clamp down hard on drones and the longer this goes on, the easier it is. This is a gross over-reaction that will severely hurt the (legitimate) drone industry in the UK.
Also bear in mind that all the other well publicized incidents in the UK turned out to be not drones. (Last one was a plastic bag).
Anyway, the question I'd like to know the answer to is "Why not Heathrow?"
Drones were reported again at 12pm and again since 9pm. Further a drone may take out an engine or the cockpit windscreen.
Personally if i was in a group that wanted to close the airport i would want 4 or 5 people each with a drone. Take off at 2km with a preprogrammed flight path into the controlled airspace and the out to another location. While it flies drive to the exit point pick up drone for fresh batteries and programme a new route. Travel to new launch point. If each person launches in sequence the you are only flying 2 or 3 times per day. As the launch and retrival locations are not repeated or linked the chances of the police finding you are low.
* dons foil hat* boom imigration is reduced as no planes arrive. *removes foil hat and extracts toungue from cheek*
The other thought that occurs is that there's a less palatable need to shut down Gatwick airport, and drone flights are a plausible reason that avoids mass panic. But that fails the Occam's razor test...
The perp owns a catering business in Gatwick. :PThe other thought that occurs is that there's a less palatable need to shut down Gatwick airport, and drone flights are a plausible reason that avoids mass panic. But that fails the Occam's razor test...
How about this for paranoia: the perp is sizing up to make a killing from a portfolio invested in drone defence products and is hedging the drone service suppliers.
Just seen this:I mean there's one solution that's surely guaranteed to work... Just don't think the government is keen on the PR it would create.
"We haven't yet identified the specific make and model of the drone. That will influence our tactical options."
So, basically, there are no tech solutions against these drones just yet... if they cannot identify them, they cannot deal with them.
Just seen this:
"We haven't yet identified the specific make and model of the drone. That will influence our tactical options."
So, basically, there are no tech solutions against these drones just yet... if they cannot identify them, they cannot deal with them.
I reckon a rural airport, like say Bristol, would be very easy to spot anyone within 2km launching or recharging them as there are so few people legitimately lurking out and about in the rain in these parts. I would imagine the population within that radius of Gatwick is larger?
We are looking at the need for travel from the wrong perspective. Just suppose that flying would kill everyone we know. The bad news is that we don't know whether it will or not. We do know that flying is currently thought to contribute around 2% of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. By the time the ice sheets start to move it will be many years to late to do anything about it. There won't be many people left after a 66m sea level rise, especially not after the wars over the diminishing land area. Civilisation as we know it would pretty much cease to exist. We need to make lots of changes to the way we live if we intend to survive the next 100 years. Flying being one of them.
Different from the films you normally find in skips. Those are more of rogerzilla interest. ;)I was thinking along those lines but wondered if there was something else or if the drone/s were still flying. I guess now the principle is proved, it'll happen at various times at various airports by protesters eco and political as well as various other nefarious reasons. Also just for the lolz, until someone accidentally causes a plane crash.I haven't seen any explanation of why the airport is still closed. Are the drones still flying around? In which case they must have amazing battery life or be very well organized with relays of the things. Also, given it's reported they've brought the army in, how come they haven't just vaporized them?
Presumably because they haven't caught anyone yet - there's too high a risk of them just coming back when they restart?
I seriously question just how much damage a drone could do, to be honest.
I once watched a documentary about aircraft engines. There was someone whose job it was, and I really envied this person, to fire dead chickens into jet engines running at full bore. It was awesome. There was a brief red plume out the back of the engine, and it merrily carried on engineing.
Of course - it would be pretty easy to weaponise a drone; reduce some of its weight, and replace with explosives. Maybe. I dunno - I'm not a terrorist. But I would like the job of firing dead chickens into jet engines.
I have a few versions of real film, filmed at different camera speeds (maybe originals) of various things being sucked and thrown in to jet engines. These were stolen from skips.
A good airport to do stuff at is a fairly rural one with a long perimeter fence and easy road access.If you believe the marketing then East Midlands Airport is the second busiest freight airport in the UK.
A good airport to do stuff at is a fairly rural one with a long perimeter fence and easy road access.If you believe the marketing then East Midlands Airport is the second busiest freight airport in the UK.
It is rural, midway between Leicester, Derby & Nottingham, with a huge perimeter, and operates 24 hours a day. The road network is not dense, but the current mud bath that is the construction of a massive freight interchange would seem to give good cover.
If you wanted to disrupt economic activity then EMA would seem to be an easy target, plus they might well disrupt road traffic on the M1 / M42 as a free bonus.
Sent from my KFDOWI using Tapatalk
We are looking at the need for travel from the wrong perspective. Just suppose that flying would kill everyone we know. The bad news is that we don't know whether it will or not. We do know that flying is currently thought to contribute around 2% of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. By the time the ice sheets start to move it will be many years to late to do anything about it. There won't be many people left after a 66m sea level rise, especially not after the wars over the diminishing land area. Civilisation as we know it would pretty much cease to exist. We need to make lots of changes to the way we live if we intend to survive the next 100 years. Flying being one of them.
This is the nub of the problem isn't it, both personally and politically.
From the "I quite fancy it a bit warmer" brigade, to the "its not man made so there's nothing to do", the " its all too expensive" and the "yes, its horrible, but not for another hundred years"
Unlike kaboom, fiery DETH, its not immediate and so ends up too abstract or SEP. None of us for example will be around in 100 years to see the outcome, an I've not seen a single politician in a position of power willing to risk that power for something 100 years away.
Why do you need an operator?
Most sophisticated drones can be given a pre-programmed flight path. As pointed out, Gatwick is surrounded by small fields.
Multiple drones. Program in a fairly chaotic flight path. patch on a board that substitutes some of the controller functions (start, load flight path, load different flight path). Use a board that can receive text messages and have a number of pre-set flight paths.
Put several drones in fields.
Now retire to a distance and send your texts. Watch the police|army chase drones. Send texts to change paths as appropriate. Retrieve drones when you can.
Although cellular comms are easily disrupted if the authorities want to do so
and the tech comes with built in location technology (although this would need approval by the relevant authorities, but that is trivial for the police et al to obtain in a situation such as this)
Flights suspended again due to another sighting...
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.
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.
For anyone who had been stuck at Gatwick, they could always play "Gatwick Invaders" to have a go themselves!
https://codepen.io/MrVincentRyan/full/pqeEYE
The perfect date for a repeat has to be 1st April.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ...
Released without charge.Bingo! (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=110564.msg2353514#msg2353514)
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.
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. ...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?
"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."
Yes. That thought crossed my mind as well.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.....
ISTR that when the air was full of ash when an unpronounceable volcano erupted that after a while they started flying again anyway.
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.
Of course, that doesn't mean that our disingenuous government won't move the goalposts regarding the definition of terrorism. See The Stansted 15.
Of course, that doesn't mean that our disingenuous government won't move the goalposts regarding the definition of terrorism. See The Stansted 15.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
Have a local office with people living in the right country.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.
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 ;D
Anybody with a basic workshop and able to Google pulsejet could make some rockety things fly.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.
My money is on the authorities in a ruse to get civilian drone usage banned.Proper konspiraci. :thumbsup:
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.
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.QuoteHe 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...
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.
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.
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).
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 ;D
So were the drone sightings reported by people with an interest in selling anti drone technology....?
So were the drone sightings reported by people with an interest in selling anti drone technology....?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1076917050130554881
A spokesperson for Birmingham Airport says flights have been temporarily suspended due to an "air traffic control fault" and is advising passengers to check with their airlines "regarding flight departures and arrivals"
Anyone seen Kim recently ? ;)
Does anyone else think of Bertie Wooster whenever Drones are mentioned? No? Just me then.Crumpets for tea is it, Tim?
Or, as we now learn, you can bring one major airport to a standstill with a few mates phoning in reported sightings of drones. Thus, with a few more mates you could simultaneously bring lots of airports to a standstill by phoning in lots of sightings around lots of airports.But then you could do the same by phoning in sightings of "suspicious packages."
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1076917050130554881 (https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1076917050130554881)
A spokesperson for Birmingham Airport says flights have been temporarily suspended due to an "air traffic control fault" and is advising passengers to check with their airlines "regarding flight departures and arrivals"
Anyone seen Kim recently ? ;)
Sorry. I coughed too hard and they saw a bogey on their radar screen...
Really, that couple shouldn't have been named. The police said that the arrest was 'lawful'. Assuming that those two did nothing wrong and weren't involved in any way, there was no evidence at all against them (an accusation is not evidence, however many people say the same thing), so it was false imprisonment. I hope that they get good compensation.There were some on this forum who were happy to post photographs of the couple. ::-)
A far worse case was when that garden designer in Bristol was murdered. Her landlord was charged and named - he didn't do it, but his reputation was ruined.
Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence is not proof. In the absence of guilt there is no evidence at all, just incompetence and stupidity.
Really, that couple shouldn't have been named. The police said that the arrest was 'lawful'. Assuming that those two did nothing wrong and weren't involved in any way, there was no evidence at all against them (an accusation is not evidence, however many people say the same thing), so it was false imprisonment. I hope that they get good compensation.
A far worse case was when that garden designer in Bristol was murdered. Her landlord was charged and named - he didn't do it, but his reputation was ruined.
Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence is not proof. In the absence of guilt there is no evidence at all, just incompetence and stupidity.
My money is on the authorities in a ruse to get civilian drone usage banned.
There was a vid of what appeared to be a drone flying above a place that looked like an airport terminal on a day that was claimed to be yesterday. I'm sure a link to it was posted here.
With all of the plane spotters sitting around with their telephoto lenses, plus all of the media, you'd think someone could have got a decent photo/video.
And identified what make/model of drone it actually was. Several reports claimed it was an 'industrial' drone, I'm not sure how they worked that out.
, some senior barrister was bemoaning the fact that people who look nice and present themselves well in the witness box are more likely to get off. Erm, really.Unconcious bias ("Forget the evidence, you look like me, so I'm going to find you not guilty").
, some senior barrister was bemoaning the fact that people who look nice and present themselves well in the witness box are more likely to get off. Erm, really.Unconcious bias ("Forget the evidence, you look like me, so I'm going to find you not guilty").
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.
Thats a purchase that shouts out ‘due diligence’! “The airport has spent £5 million on technology since Wednesday to prevent copycat attacks.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.
Nailed it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714
You can imagine that there’s a chap in a back office somewhere that’s been ranting about Drone attacks forever and has continued to receive the same answer ‘shut up Terry (who is head of aerial attack prevention), that’s obviously not going to happen’, then on Thursday morning, the boss has come down to the department and turned to John (who is head of tunnelling attack prevention) and said ‘John, this can’t happen again, here’s £5 million, get whatever we need’
OK then, concious bias. It happens. My employer has 'unconsious bias' courses, so that one can, some senior barrister was bemoaning the fact that people who look nice and present themselves well in the witness box are more likely to get off. Erm, really.Unconcious bias ("Forget the evidence, you look like me, so I'm going to find you not guilty").
It's not really that unconscious tbh, but it is the obvious outcome of an adversarial justice system.
OK then, concious bias. It happens. My employer has 'unconsious bias' courses, so that one can, some senior barrister was bemoaning the fact that people who look nice and present themselves well in the witness box are more likely to get off. Erm, really.Unconcious bias ("Forget the evidence, you look like me, so I'm going to find you not guilty").
It's not really that unconscious tbh, but it is the obvious outcome of an adversarial justice system.
recognise when it's happening. I'd wager it still persists.
The 'we found a broken drone' seems increasingly desperate. 'But the rain may have washed away any evidence...'
Yeah, it might have.
I suspect we'll have more genuine footage of Santa this evening than there will ever be of any Gatwick drone.
The 'we found a broken drone' seems increasingly desperate. 'But the rain may have washed away any evidence...'
Yeah, it might have.
I suspect we'll have more genuine footage of Santa this evening than there will ever be of any Gatwick drone.
As an r/c model flyer, but no fan of drones in the wrong hands, I was very sceptical when they were saying that there were 50 drone sightings - now it's 67, I'm even more sceptical.
If people had made 67 drone flights around Gatwick over an 18 hour period, someone, somewhere would have seen something and there would be more reporting of the sightings than there has been. That's a lot of flights. OK, maybe some are multiple sightings of the same flight, but even so it beggars my belief that there were a large number of drone incursions.
We don't however, accept drone flyers as members (and maybe that's a shame), simply because the full-size flyers trust the model flyers (helicopter and fixed wing) to know the rules and stick to them. With the bad publicity surrounding drones, we simply can't take the risk of alienating our neighbours.
None of the fancy equipment seems to have detected one: no pictures, no radar, no radio signals.
We don't however, accept drone flyers as members (and maybe that's a shame), simply because the full-size flyers trust the model flyers (helicopter and fixed wing) to know the rules and stick to them. With the bad publicity surrounding drones, we simply can't take the risk of alienating our neighbours.
Out of interest how do you define the difference between a drone and a model? Is it as simple that a model looks like a proper aircraft albeit sometimes an imagined one? Or is it more subtle?
You can imagine that there’s a chap in a back office somewhere that’s been ranting about Drone attacks forever and has continued to receive the same answer ‘shut up Terry (who is head of aerial attack prevention), that’s obviously not going to happen’, then on Thursday morning, the boss has come down to the department and turned to John (who is head of tunnelling attack prevention) and said ‘John, this can’t happen again, here’s £5 million, get whatever we need’
So true...
There's a cable duct <somewhere> at Gatwick, where a ferret was employed to drag a line to facilitate cable pulling.You can imagine that there’s a chap in a back office somewhere that’s been ranting about Drone attacks forever and has continued to receive the same answer ‘shut up Terry (who is head of aerial attack prevention), that’s obviously not going to happen’, then on Thursday morning, the boss has come down to the department and turned to John (who is head of tunnelling attack prevention) and said ‘John, this can’t happen again, here’s £5 million, get whatever we need’
So true...
No need to tunnel under the gatwiick runways, it's already been done and carries the river Mole in two large culverts if my memory serves.
It all comes back to the difficulty of determining what is a drone in law.
Fortunately, sense has prevailed and the Regs as drafted recognise that it's not the legitimate model flyers who are causing the problem, but those who can buy a drone over the internet, set it up to fly itself, and then breach the exisiting laws without knowing that there even were laws that they needed to know about.
QuoteFortunately, sense has prevailed and the Regs as drafted recognise that it's not the legitimate model flyers who are causing the problem, but those who can buy a drone over the internet, set it up to fly itself, and then breach the exisiting laws without knowing that there even were laws that they needed to know about.
Ie. it's not about any particular technology, but rather that the barrier to entry has become so low that any ignorant or malicious person can (and therefore will) do stupid shit with UAVs
If you could buy a flight-ready combustion-engined R/C aeroplane for £30 in Tescos, we have the same sort of problems (likely minus a few fingers) with those.
I suppose it's just that multi-rotor helicopters are capable of hovering and naturally (and cheaply) lend themselves to full abstraction of the control system. There's now a reasonable expectation that you can make one do what you want it to without a high degree of skill. While you could probably achieve the same with a traditional helicopter and the right control system, it would be much more fiddly and expensive. Fixed wing aircraft are always going to have to fly like fixed wing aircraft (or at least ballistically), and ornithopters[1] are far too finicky.My bold.
I think off-the-shelf drones are, in target market terms, closer to kites than traditional model aircraft[2]: There are enthusiasts doing clever things with their own builds, but they're generally perceived as something you can simply buy and have fun flying around until you break it; just stay away from overhead cables. Without the dependence on wind or the limitations of string. I might be wrong, but I get the impression that affordable camera drones killed off most people's interest in kite photography almost overnight.
[1] I had a cheap R/C bat ornithopter that was a random inappropriate Christmas present. TBH, I was impressed that it flew as well as it did, but it was the sort of thing that really needed a large indoor space, and the control was limited. It did a reasonable impression of a startled bat trapped indoors.
[2] This seems related to my curmudgeonly rant about the increasing popularity of ride-on electric vehicles for small children who would traditionally have had a bicycle or tricycle.
While you could probably achieve the same with a traditional helicopter and the right control system, it would be much more fiddly and expensive.
This is my prototype heli on an autonomous survey mission.Dead impressed. Aerial footage from a camera drone?
...This is off-topic, and purely for my curiosity:
It's also made me realize just how silly the new 'multi-rotor passenger' vehicles are. They are, as mentioned, very inefficient and if you lose power, you die. With a helicopter, at least you have the chance of auto-rotating.
...This is off-topic, and purely for my curiosity:
It's also made me realize just how silly the new 'multi-rotor passenger' vehicles are. They are, as mentioned, very inefficient and if you lose power, you die. With a helicopter, at least you have the chance of auto-rotating.
why don't the multi-rotors auto-rotate? Are they a fundamentally different type of rotor?
They are, on the other hand, mechanically simple. I suppose there's a reasonable safety argument for a multi-rotor system that can cope with the failure of n rotors.That would depend on the configuration and I suspect would require the number of rotors to exceed 4. There would also need to be an over power provision in each rotor.
So I'd be safest in one of these, yeah?
(https://img.newatlas.com/lift-aircraft-manned-multirotor-drone-experience-22.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&rect=0%2C99%2C1695%2C953&w=616&s=73f850256cc701a8c923877bda796809)
We were having a discussion about this at work and I was wondering why planes couldn't just continue anyway despite the possible drone(s) ie why is it any more dangerous than a bird.. One bloke reckoned if a drone hit a plane's wing and it caught it just right so the rotor came into contact with the wing, it could slice through the wing and completely shear it from the body of the plane. True, or bollocks?Bollox. But that’s not the whole problem. Commercial Aeroplanes tent to be big complex machines, often with lots of people on board, and drones tend to be many varietied both in complexity and size, and more importantly, capable of carrying a wide selection of payloads. The drones in the equation would also be unidentified and essentially unidentifiable. This means that the risk is essentially unquantifiable in the short term and the only safe thing to do is shutdown operations until you can gather more information and pad out your risk assessments.
We were having a discussion about this at work and I was wondering why planes couldn't just continue anyway despite the possible drone(s) ie why is it any more dangerous than a bird..
One concern is the battery; most of a drone is plastic and will shatter if hit by a plane at 200mph (as do birds in small numbers), but the battery is tougher and could make a hole in something, maybe a fan blade.Or indeed the windscreen.
Doing the risk assessment doesn't make anyone safer.We were having a discussion about this at work and I was wondering why planes couldn't just continue anyway despite the possible drone(s) ie why is it any more dangerous than a bird.. One bloke reckoned if a drone hit a plane's wing and it caught it just right so the rotor came into contact with the wing, it could slice through the wing and completely shear it from the body of the plane. True, or bollocks?Bollox. But that’s not the whole problem. Commercial Aeroplanes tent to be big complex machines, often with lots of people on board, and drones tend to be many varietied both in complexity and size, and more importantly, capable of carrying a wide selection of payloads. The drones in the equation would also be unidentified and essentially unidentifiable. This means that the risk is essentially unquantifiable in the short term and the only safe thing to do is shutdown operations until you can gather more information and pad out your risk assessments.
They are, on the other hand, mechanically simple. I suppose there's a reasonable safety argument for a multi-rotor system that can cope with the failure of n rotors.
They are, on the other hand, mechanically simple. I suppose there's a reasonable safety argument for a multi-rotor system that can cope with the failure of n rotors.
Chinook seems to fit that bill.
So I'd be safest in one of these, yeah?
(https://img.newatlas.com/lift-aircraft-manned-multirotor-drone-experience-22.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&rect=0%2C99%2C1695%2C953&w=616&s=73f850256cc701a8c923877bda796809)
I still don't understand why there has not been a single picture of the drone. This is UK, forchrissake, the country with probably the highest level of surveillance in the world.
One concern is the battery; most of a drone is plastic and will shatter if hit by a plane at 200mph (as do birds in small numbers), but the battery is tougher and could make a hole in something, maybe a fan blade.And with many (most?) modern batteries there is always the unpleasant possibility of it rapidly converting itself into an incendiary device on impact.
I still don't understand why there has not been a single picture of the drone. This is UK, forchrissake, the country with probably the highest level of surveillance in the world.
'cos there wasn't one...…..
Thats the blame culture for you. Hide the facts so we can’t learn from our mistakes.I still don't understand why there has not been a single picture of the drone. This is UK, forchrissake, the country with probably the highest level of surveillance in the world.
'cos there wasn't one...…..
This, 100%. Not one picture, not one piece of evidence that there was an actual drone (that didn't belong to the authorities, anyway). Of course, now they can't admit it, so this stupid charade will roll on until everyone forgets about it.
Only briefly read the BBC version of the article but some of the changes seem sensible. For example currently it legal to fly a drone at 400’ 1km away from an airport which would put you in conflict with aircraft coming into land. The new rules will remove this inconsistency which was one of BALPA’s concerns.
Only briefly read the BBC version of the article but some of the changes seem sensible. For example currently it legal to fly a drone at 400’ 1km away from an airport which would put you in conflict with aircraft coming into land. The new rules will remove this inconsistency which was one of BALPA’s concerns.
While I agree that the distance is short, what aircraft is at 400' altitude 1km from the threshold?. I'm also pretty certain that interfering with manned traffic was already illegal, so all it's doing is making something illegal...well, illegal.
They'd be far better of making drone identification mandatory for airline pilots...then the number of incidents would drop dramatically.
Only briefly read the BBC version of the article but some of the changes seem sensible. For example currently it legal to fly a drone at 400’ 1km away from an airport which would put you in conflict with aircraft coming into land. The new rules will remove this inconsistency which was one of BALPA’s concerns.
While I agree that the distance is short, what aircraft is at 400' altitude 1km from the threshold?
Only briefly read the BBC version of the article but some of the changes seem sensible. For example currently it legal to fly a drone at 400’ 1km away from an airport which would put you in conflict with aircraft coming into land. The new rules will remove this inconsistency which was one of BALPA’s concerns.
While I agree that the distance is short, what aircraft is at 400' altitude 1km from the threshold?. I'm also pretty certain that interfering with manned traffic was already illegal, so all it's doing is making something illegal...well, illegal.
They'd be far better of making drone identification mandatory for airline pilots...then the number of incidents would drop dramatically.
“Drones need to be kept well away from other aircraft. BALPA has presented the case for policies which will ensure sensible separation between drones and aircraft, including helicopters, which we don’t yet have.
“A drone at 400ft, 1km away from an airport is still directly in the flight path and that is plainly not safe and yet is allowed under the new legislation.
“Therefore, BALPA will continue to argue for a drone exclusion zone around airports of 5km in the interests of safety.”
https://www.balpa.org/Media-Centre/Press-Releases/Pilots-respond-to-Government-announcement-on-drone (https://www.balpa.org/Media-Centre/Press-Releases/Pilots-respond-to-Government-announcement-on-drone)
As is usual with knee jerk changes...These changes were in train before the fuss at Gatwick and have been through a fair bit of review. Having had the very briefest dekko at them they don't seem unreasonable.
Registration in the US was $5. (Then a bunch of lawsuits stopped the Gov't from requiring it, but I think it's coming back).Thx for the reminder - I'd forgotten where the FAA were up to on this.
Similar system is coming here in Canada (announced tomorrow actually).
FWIW, they had, at one point, a 9km (radius) exclusion around any airfield here, which basically made it impossible to fly anywhere. It's been reduced to 5km and will be reduced further to 3.5km.
There were no drones at Gatwick, they just won't admit it now. XR should realise they can save money by not having to buy actual drones, just claim to have seen one.
police have said that some reported drone sightings may have been Sussex Police's own craft.
..
[The couple] say despite the apology they still have "no explanation" for why they were held "incommunicado" for 36 hours.
Mr Miller also confirmed the force commissioned a "thorough independent review" of the drone incident.
Looking at this cynically ... on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?If Amazon et al do go in for drone delivery in a big way I suspect the answer to that question will be, "just about everybody".
Looking at this cynically the so-called drone incursion allowed the government a convenient excuse to strengthen drone laws in an attempt to further control the masses on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
Looking at this cynically the so-called drone incursion allowed the government a convenient excuse to strengthen drone laws in an attempt to further control the masses on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
Looking at this cynically the so-called drone incursion allowed the government a convenient excuse to strengthen drone laws in an attempt to further control the masses on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
This ‘problem that doesn’t exist’ came close to colliding with aircraft on 139 occasions in 2018, and 125 in 2019. That may be a risk you are willing to take. As a pilot, I am not.
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Statistics/Airprox-involving-UAS-Drones/
Looking at this cynically the so-called drone incursion allowed the government a convenient excuse to strengthen drone laws in an attempt to further control the masses on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
I have. A couple of summers ago one flew very low over the back gardens in our street. It wasn't clear where it came from, but we suspect a small block of flats with balconies nearby.
This ‘problem that doesn’t exist’ came close to colliding with aircraft on 139 occasions in 2018, and 125 in 2019. That may be a risk you are willing to take. As a pilot, I am not.Plenty of reports by pilots. How many of them actually exist? How many of them were drones? How many were actually close the aircraft?
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Statistics/Airprox-involving-UAS-Drones/
Looking at this cynically the so-called drone incursion allowed the government a convenient excuse to strengthen drone laws in an attempt to further control the masses on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
This ‘problem that doesn’t exist’ came close to colliding with aircraft on 139 occasions in 2018, and 125 in 2019. That may be a risk you are willing to take. As a pilot, I am not.
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Statistics/Airprox-involving-UAS-Drones/
What I was referring to Tim was the problem of the apparent drone at Gatwick which fired off all the shenanigans. I accept that drones can be a hazard to aircraft and a greater level of control may not be a bad thing but sometimes the legislators lift their knee into the groin of reasonableness in order to look like they are effective when they are not simply to placate their red-faced, vein-popping angry indignant supporters.
People with malicious intent or who are totally selfish or ignorant tend not to follow laws and rules regardless of their existence. Using a mobile phone whilst driving springs to mind.
Out of interest, do you know how many drone strikes there have been? And no, I am not suggesting that because the total might be low that it is not an issue.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
...which, like all drone videos, will then have indescribably shite background music added before it goes on YouTube. I am reliably informed that tutorials on Linux shell scripting use equally abhorrent soundtracks.How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
Define issue? I was on the top of A'Dam Lookout, one of the highest public ally accessible places in Amsterdam, a couple of summers back. As I watched the sun set, a small drone came up and flew around the observation deck. A few minutes later we got a close fly by from a much much larger rotary wing craft, with blue flashy lights, and markings suggesting the people inside were polite.
I've also had drones buzz me while riding across the delta works in Zeeland. I'm guessing a cyclist provides them with a nice focal point for their industrial video...
J
Looking at this cynically the so-called drone incursion allowed the government a convenient excuse to strengthen drone laws in an attempt to further control the masses on the back of a problem that simply didn't exist.
How many people in honest reality have had an issue with a drone being flown near them that can be attributed to a private operator?
This ‘problem that doesn’t exist’ came close to colliding with aircraft on 139 occasions in 2018, and 125 in 2019. That may be a risk you are willing to take. As a pilot, I am not.
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Statistics/Airprox-involving-UAS-Drones/
What I was referring to Tim was the problem of the apparent drone at Gatwick which fired off all the shenanigans. I accept that drones can be a hazard to aircraft and a greater level of control may not be a bad thing but sometimes the legislators lift their knee into the groin of reasonableness in order to look like they are effective when they are not simply to placate their red-faced, vein-popping angry indignant supporters.
People with malicious intent or who are totally selfish or ignorant tend not to follow laws and rules regardless of their existence. Using a mobile phone whilst driving springs to mind.
Out of interest, do you know how many drone strikes there have been? And no, I am not suggesting that because the total might be low that it is not an issue.
I have no idea what the situation actually was at Gatwick, but I don't doubt that there was at least one large drone spotted over the airfield. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that it was operated by the Police. As for actual drone collisions, this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UAV-related_incidents#Verified_aircraft_collisions) Wiki article relates a few, but I believe there have been more.
Whether legislation will in itself have any effect is moot, but it at least provides specific offences that the Police can use to apprehend potential offenders rather than the more woolly 'hazard to navigation' legislation that previously covered the issue.
(..........and this was 8 years ago so before the media realised model aircraft existed and parliaments felt compelled to legislate!). I don't understand why model fliers are vilified like this, sure there are idiots who need to be dealt with but most guys just want to spend some time tinkering. AFAIK no serious accident has happened yet.
What difference did the regs make to existing RC model flyers ?In brief:
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Two drone / chopper collisions in under a fortnight. The second pretty bad.
Chile - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/
USA - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Two drone / chopper collisions in under a fortnight. The second pretty bad.
Chile - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/
USA - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/
The USA one seems to be utter stupidity. How could you *not* know there was a chopper in the vicinity, unless you were completely deaf (and even then would likely pick up the vibration).
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Two drone / chopper collisions in under a fortnight. The second pretty bad.
Chile - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/
USA - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/
The USA one seems to be utter stupidity. How could you *not* know there was a chopper in the vicinity, unless you were completely deaf (and even then would likely pick up the vibration).
He appears to have flown the drone *because* there was a police helicopter nearby and he wanted to know what was going on.
Astonished that this didn't make the national news at the time. AAIB report published this week.
tl;dr 95Kg (yes Kg) drone out of control in class A controlled airspace over Goodwood followed by uncontrolled descent and crash. No-one hurt. This time.
News article - https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/19/airspeeder_alauda_drone_goodwood_investigation/
AAIB Report - https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-airspeeder-mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719 link to full PDF.
Six months after the "ghost" drone.
Astonished that this didn't make the national news at the time. AAIB report published this week.I think that if I'd turned up at my model flying club with that, and asked the CFI to check it out before I flew it, I'd have been told to take it home for a re-think. What were they thinking of? 95kg death trap............
tl;dr 95Kg (yes Kg) drone out of control in class A controlled airspace over Goodwood followed by uncontrolled descent and crash. No-one hurt. This time.
News article - https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/19/airspeeder_alauda_drone_goodwood_investigation/
AAIB Report - https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-airspeeder-mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719 link to full PDF.
Six months after the "ghost" drone.
...three Arduinos on prototyping board and the kill switch is a Normally Closed relay with zero monitoring of whether the receiver is reachable...Leaving aside the atrocious mess they made of the soldering I have no issue with prototyping boards being used in a prototype assuming they've made sure that all the cable runs are set up and components are sufficiently well shielded so that RFI and other cross-talk isn't a problem (aye, right), but an NC relay? No, I couldn't quite believe that either. An utterly unforgiveable hanging offence.
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Two drone / chopper collisions in under a fortnight. The second pretty bad.
Chile - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/
USA - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/
But Gulls tend to be autonomous and have a sense of self preservation. As a hobby dronist I don’t want to see lots of heavy regulation, not least because it doesn’t usually stop the idiots or ne’er do well’s but the idiots do need to be reigned in somehow.
But Gulls tend to be autonomous and have a sense of self preservation. As a hobby dronist I don’t want to see lots of heavy regulation, not least because it doesn’t usually stop the idiots or ne’er do well’s but the idiots do need to be reigned in somehow.
I can't see a Gull reliably coming out of the way of an aircraft flying much faster! As for reigning in the idiots, in theory yes but look at the number of people driving like idiots, can't see how they could eradicate idiocy... and nobody has yet downed an aircraft with a drone out of idiocy AFAIK. The main merit of these drone scares is to sell newspapers IMHO.
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Two drone / chopper collisions in under a fortnight. The second pretty bad.
Chile - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/ (https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/)
USA - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/ (https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/)
But Gulls tend to be autonomous and have a sense of self preservation. As a hobby dronist I don’t want to see lots of heavy regulation, not least because it doesn’t usually stop the idiots or ne’er do well’s but the idiots do need to be reigned in somehow.
I can't see a Gull reliably coming out of the way of an aircraft flying much faster! As for reigning in the idiots, in theory yes but look at the number of people driving like idiots, can't see how they could eradicate idiocy... and nobody has yet downed an aircraft with a drone out of idiocy AFAIK. The main merit of these drone scares is to sell newspapers IMHO.
Did you miss this:QuoteI suppose it was only a matter of time. Two drone / chopper collisions in under a fortnight. The second pretty bad.
Chile - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/ (https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/26/drone_helicopter_collision/)
USA - https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/ (https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/16/drone_helicopter_crash/)
Astonished that this didn't make the national news at the time. AAIB report published this week.I think that if I'd turned up at my model flying club with that, and asked the CFI to check it out before I flew it, I'd have been told to take it home for a re-think. What were they thinking of? 95kg death trap............
tl;dr 95Kg (yes Kg) drone out of control in class A controlled airspace over Goodwood followed by uncontrolled descent and crash. No-one hurt. This time.
News article - https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/19/airspeeder_alauda_drone_goodwood_investigation/
AAIB Report - https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-airspeeder-mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719 link to full PDF.
Six months after the "ghost" drone.
No I didn't miss it, the drone "lost",Ermm, I think you may have missed the fact that in the Chilean incident the passenger in the helicopter was hurt when the drone smashed through the canopy. As it weighed 0.75kg I assume the passenger was quite badly hurt.
(https://media.biobiochile.cl/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/accidente-aereo-drone-impacta-a-helicoptero-de-la-armada-en-pleno-vuelo-e-hiere-a-piloto.jpeg)Quote from: PanoramixNo I didn't miss it, the drone "lost",Ermm, I think you may have missed the fact that in the Chilean incident the passenger in the helicopter was hurt when the drone smashed through the canopy. As it weighed 0.75kg I assume the passenger was quite badly hurt.
The "human capable" drone in the Goodwood incident – would the human in the drone have been a passive passenger, at the mercies of the controller on the ground? That sounds scary. Or would they have been in control of the machine? In which case it surely ceases to be an unmanned aerial vehicle and they would presumably require a private pilot's licence.It was a scale model of the human capable machine. It was over half size, but smaller and lighter than one that could carry a person.
While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.
While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.I don't think that a quad rotor craft can be controlled with one rotor inoperative. Control of roll, pitch, yaw and power are all needed. With three rotors, there are only three control inputs so it can't work.
Yes, I know how a helicopter works. I can, at a push, even describe retreating-blade stall and vortex ring (RAF A2 fixed-wing QFI, so my description might be a bit superficial!).From a purely redundancy pooling of view, helicopters are just about the daftest idea for getting aloft that there is, a position that they haven’t exactly shown to be erroneous over the years. That said, I don’t actually know what their failure rate is in comparison to fixed wing, though their operational capabilities have largely negated any increased risk.
I believe a quad-rotor can be controlled with the loss of a rotor if each rotor is gimballed, which would allow each rotor to give an element of sideways thrust. The loss of a motor is probably more easily resolved with back-ups. The point is that if it looks economically viable, it will be done. If it looks likely that it won't be cheaper than a single-rotor helo, it won't happen.
I had a student called eagles. Her dad was a Royal Navy test pilot of some renown. She is now a B777 Captain with BA. Sadly, I don't know Tom - it would be funny if he were Anna's son!I think him being her son is unlikely given that I learnt to fly in the 80s and he was club CFI and a senior RAF flight instructor at the time. 8)
https://youtu.be/bsHryqnvyYAWhile the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.I don't think that a quad rotor craft can be controlled with one rotor inoperative. Control of roll, pitch, yaw and power are all needed. With three rotors, there are only three control inputs so it can't work.
A helicopter has cyclic (fore-aft and left-right, so two controls) plus collective and tail rotor power. A fixed wing has ailerons, rudder, elevators and power, but they are usually stable in flight so you can get away with fewer. Multi-rotor craft are unstable in all directions so all four are needed.
A 6 rotor machine may be able to control will the loss of one rotor.
I had a student called eagles. Her dad was a Royal Navy test pilot of some renown. She is now a B777 Captain with BA. Sadly, I don't know Tom - it would be funny if he were Anna's son!I think him being her son is unlikely given that I learnt to fly in the 80s and he was club CFI and a senior RAF flight instructor at the time. 8)
While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.I don't think that a quad rotor craft can be controlled with one rotor inoperative. Control of roll, pitch, yaw and power are all needed. With three rotors, there are only three control inputs so it can't work.
A helicopter has cyclic (fore-aft and left-right, so two controls) plus collective and tail rotor power. A fixed wing has ailerons, rudder, elevators and power, but they are usually stable in flight so you can get away with fewer. Multi-rotor craft are unstable in all directions so all four are needed.
A 6 rotor machine may be able to control will the loss of one rotor.
While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.
Helicopters are statistically safer than fixed wing. They crash a little more (And a lot of that can be directly contributed to the environment they fly in, ie wire environment), but survivability in a crash is higher.
That's a professionals opinion of the relative safety of helicopters versus fixed wing.*cough* *whispers* I think TimC is a professional too. :)
That's a professionals opinion of the relative safety of helicopters versus fixed wing.*cough* *whispers* I think TimC is a professional too. :)
‘They crash a little more’…!
I think you need to be a little more specific with your stats. Let’s start with public-transport helicopters versus public-transport fixed-wing aircraft. I’m not interested in private aviation; that’s amateur hobbyists playing at it, with all the variability of talent, knowledge and skill that that implies. I’m not saying public transport helicopters are unsafe, but they are far short of public transport fixed wing in any sensible safety analysis.
Me? I'm all in favour of nice big aerofoils rivetted, welded, nailed, glued or even tied into place. The glide angle may not be great on anything other than a sailplane, but I'd trust that sooner than auto-rotate or whatever the last-ditch please-don't-let-me-die manouevre is that they pull with helicopters.
He will not take anyone up for a joy ride in a helicopter. He will take them up in a light aircraft.
That's a professionals opinion of the relative safety of helicopters versus fixed wing.
Just when you think people cannot be any *more* stupid, thoughtless or selfish...I don't think I've ever thought that. (See also just there \/)
List of Westland Whirlwind crashes (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?at=Westland+whirlwind&re=&pc=&op=&fa=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&page=1). How many :o Is there one in a museum somewhere with a big shiny plaque under it 'This is the one that didn't crash'?
List of Westland Whirlwind crashes (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?at=Westland+whirlwind&re=&pc=&op=&fa=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&page=1). How many :o Is there one in a museum somewhere with a big shiny plaque under it 'This is the one that didn't crash'?
List of Westland Whirlwind crashes (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?at=Westland+whirlwind&re=&pc=&op=&fa=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&page=1). How many :o Is there one in a museum somewhere with a big shiny plaque under it 'This is the one that didn't crash'?
List of Westland Whirlwind crashes (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?at=Westland+whirlwind&re=&pc=&op=&fa=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&page=1). How many :o Is there one in a museum somewhere with a big shiny plaque under it 'This is the one that didn't crash'?
Then don't look at Meteors:
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?yr=&at=Gloster+meteor&re=&pc=&op=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&submit=Submit
List of Westland Whirlwind crashes (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?at=Westland+whirlwind&re=&pc=&op=&fa=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&page=1). How many :o Is there one in a museum somewhere with a big shiny plaque under it 'This is the one that didn't crash'?
Then don't look at Meteors:
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?yr=&at=Gloster+meteor&re=&pc=&op=&lo=&co=&ph=&na=&submit=Submit
(Also, on the whirlwhind list, see how many non-fatal accidents compared on the S-55s, vs the fixed wing version).
In that list, the Whirlwind helicopter is appended S-55 - its Sikorsky type number. As Paulf says, the earlier ones are the twin-engined fixed-wing fighter.Thank you, I sit corrected again. Mind, fixed wing only accounts for 16 of the 189 listed crashes.
The one I was in was the later turbine-engined version of the RAF SAR persuasion, belonging to SARTU at RAF Valley. Sometime around 1970.
In that list, the Whirlwind helicopter is appended S-55 - its Sikorsky type number. As Paulf says, the earlier ones are the twin-engined fixed-wing fighter.Thank you, I sit corrected again. Mind, fixed wing only accounts for 16 of the 189 listed crashes.
The one I was in was the later turbine-engined version of the RAF SAR persuasion, belonging to SARTU at RAF Valley. Sometime around 1970.
Are you sure you want to click open the spoiler and the link within?(click to show/hide)
Jakob, the point is not to crash in the first place. Helicopters are rather less good at that than aeroplanes. I've flown plenty of helicopters, from a Gazelle to a CH-53. They are great fun to fly, but in the interests of self-preservation I will not passenger in one unless there is absolutely no choice. I have survived an involuntary auto-rotated landing in a Whirlwind (as a passenger); it's not an experience I ever want to repeat. The aircraft did not survive the event in a repairable state... I have also had several engine failures in fixed wing aircraft in a career of 45 years and well north of 20,000 hours, and never needed to land anywhere other than a runway, in full control and with free choice of when and where it happened.I tend to agree with that!
I had a Boeing C-17A Globemaster III low level over the garden the other day. Looking on FlightRadar24 and the number times it was buzzing the runway at a local airport but only landing a couple of times, before heading off elsewhere and repeating at other airports, I have to assume it was a jolly good fun training day.
Speaking of which, jumped on that site just now to get the history and I think this chap is a little lost.
https://www.flightradar24.com/BDN02/284e6de
The Rotodyne was very clever, but possibly the noisiest machine man has ever created. The V22 is another answer to the same problem: how do you make a payload-carrying vehicle that can land and take off vertically, and cruise at a useful speed. It works, and it’s nowhere near as noisy, but it took huge amounts of money to get it into service, and its not likely ever to directly spawn a civilian variant