Drone disruption at LGW

[Nearholmer]

"This isn't a problem that can be dealt with with extra laws."

 

Its certainly extremely difficult to see what new laws might be made that would be effective, and that applies to many sorts of software-and-telecoms-based things, not just UAVs. But, presumably, humanity is going to have to come up with some way of governing the use of this technology, in the same way that we've had to come up with ways of governing the use of all preceding potentially threatening technologies.

 

Right now, we are all struggling to work out whether/how to govern "the internet", which really means software-mediated information exchange. That doesn't involve much in the way of obvious physical interaction yet, but as software-mediated systems grow arms, legs, wheels, wings, rotors, and, already in military applications, sharp claws and teeth, things get very "interesting", it has the potential to do direct physical harm, as well as good, in the same way that it already has the ability to do direct (usually unintended) psychological harm, as well as good.

 

The basic "thou shalt nots" are the same, but if a perpetrator can perpetrate (a) by remote control from great distance, and/or (b) by setting objectives for an autonomous 'bot', then leaving it to get on with the job, then how on earth (literally) do you find them in order to enforce a law? It's currently borderline impossible to enforce the universally accepted "thou shall not steal" law, when it is committed through software-mediation, its pretty blasted difficult to enforce a "thou shall not deliberately cause malfunctions in other people's software-controlled systems" principle, and it would be just as difficult to enforce "thou shall not murder" if the weapon chosen is a 'bot'.

 

Maybe the way forward is "goody-bots" that are tasked with protecting us from "baddie-bots". The military already do this, and some home-security systems contain the potential to be expanded in that direction. Set a drone to catch a drone, maybe.

 

The can of worms is creaking open!

Edited December 21, 2018 by Nearholmer

[newbryford]

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a gadget that, when directed at a rogue drone, caused the r/c transmitter or mobile phone controlling it to explode.....

 

If the drone was flying a pre-loaded trajectory, there would be no need for radio control.

[Nearholmer]

Newbryford,

 

A move beyond a pre-loaded trajectory is to fit sensors and programme it to behave in given ways in response to given stimuli.

 

Move to assigned parking position; scan sky in given direction and elevation for bright central light plus blinking peripheral lights; when angle between lights exceeds Y degrees, then start rotors and launch; move towards lights until angle between them equals Z, then maintain that position: when distance above ground <50m, then drop abruptly to =5m and return to assigned parking position.

 

No r/c to jam, and the 'brain' can probably be put inside a shield that makes it immune to most forms of generalised countermeasures.

 

(there are multiple reasons why the 'plane identification strategy outlined above would probably be uselessly unreliable, but there are doubtless other, better, ways of 'plane spotting)

 

Kevin

[Dunsignalling]

Anyone really intent on causing trouble will just build their own. This isn't a problem that can be dealt with with extra laws.

Just needs draconian application of existing ones both as a punishment and a deterrent to others.

 

Ten years for a first offence, then doubled up upon each instance of reoffending.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

Newbryford,

 

A move beyond a pre-loaded trajectory is to fit sensors and programme it to behave in given ways in response to given stimuli.

 

Move to assigned parking position; scan sky in given direction and elevation for bright central light plus blinking peripheral lights; when angle between lights exceeds Y degrees, then start rotors and launch; move towards lights until angle between them equals Z, then maintain that position: when distance above ground <50m, then drop abruptly to =5m and return to assigned parking position.

 

No r/c to jam, and the 'brain' can probably be put inside a shield that makes it immune to most forms of generalised countermeasures.

 

(there are multiple reasons why the 'plane identification strategy outlined above would probably be uselessly unreliable, but there are doubtless other, better, ways of 'plane spotting)

 

Kevin

Still needs to be some ar5ehole handy to change the batteries.

[Reorte]

Still needs to be some ar5ehole handy to change the batteries.

Built-in solar powered rechargers?

[Reorte]

Just needs draconian application of existing ones both as a punishment and a deterrent to others.

 

Ten years for a first offence, then doubled up upon each instance of reoffending.

Only works as long as people think they stand a good chance of being caught.

[Nearholmer]

Or, as I speculated earlier, petrol/nitro engine/s. I believe that some military ones can be recharged by laser, while in flight!

 

But, a more down to earth and currently available system is this one https://www.skysense.co

Edited December 21, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Dunsignalling]

Built-in solar powered rechargers?

There will always be an operating pattern that might be capable of defeating technological countermeasures, but not the Mk1 eyeball..

[Dunsignalling]

Or, as I speculated earlier, petrol/nitro engine/s. I believe that some military ones can be recharged by laser, while in flight!

That rather suggests a highly resourced (state-sponsored?) perpetrator rather than some amateur nutjob with a chip on his/her shoulder. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[TomE]

2 arrested. Lets hope they're the ones responsible! Very interested to see who is behind it. 

 

Tom.  

[MarkC]

2 arrested. Lets hope they're the ones responsible! Very interested to see who is behind it. 

 

Tom.  

Agreed. There should be no messing about if/when anyone is found guilty in Court either - a maximum sentence permissable should be the default here - there are no excuses for not doing so.

[boxbrownie]

So.....Environmentalists, Russians or just nutters then?

 

Sweep?

[Dunsignalling]

So.....Environmentalists, Russians or just nutters then?

 

Sweep?

Perm any two from three?

[Kickstart]

The UK spends Billions a year on the military, and they can not bring down a drone over an airfield. It demonstrates the waste of money spent on the aircraft carriers.

 

 

Major warships are capable of defending against such technology (although the cost ofva Sea Wolf fir example might be rather more than a drone)

 

 

Indeed, but it's an interesting example of how foreign visitors can react differently to things we've become acclimatised to. I have a similar reaction when I visit Brussels and see Belgian soldiers milling about everywhere in camo and armed with assault rifles, most of the time they're just stood around smoking, scratching their backsides feeling bored and ogling passing women but I just find it a bit odd to see the army regularly deployed in such numbers and often with barbed wired barricades at key points.

For me, I lived in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. Other than assault rifles being rather rare in the Uk military then, it just brings back a few memories. Police armed with Stirling sub machine guns was more worrying!

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Mallard60022]

There is a silver lining to this whole affair. Remember that the capability of controling Drones from thousands of miles away has been in use for a very long time. Not that far from me, the military have Pilots doing that very job! The lining is thus: learn from the fact that, what will turn out to be a relatively simple machine 'played with' by what will probably be fairly ordinary people, caused this much of a problem. Thus it could be prudent to consider protection from something very much more capable of causing real problems such as mentioned in my second sentence! OK the military versions are really aircraft without a human on board and carry weaponry, but I think my point is clear?  

We live in challenging times and what worries me most of all is that those that are supposed to be 'managing and funding' those considering how best to protect the general public, and I do not mean the front line employees and experienced in the field military and security personnel, have not got a ####### clue as to what is developing. Am I surprised though? Nope!

Phil

[chris p bacon]

, what will turn out to be a relatively simple machine 'played with' by what will probably be fairly ordinary people, caused this much of a problem. 

 

 

A 'fairly ordinary person' wouldn't do something such as this.  It takes someone determined to disrupt with no thought to others.

 

In recent times we've seen planes, cars and vans used as weapons in different circumstances, whoever is in power cannot foresee just what someone determined will do next and by what means. We already have someting approaching 24 hour surveillance...(that caught the Russians out recently) but just much further do you want the state to go looking for someone who 'might' be a problem sometime in the future.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Flying a large drone over an operational airfield whilst large commercial aircraft full of passengers are taking off and landing is a real danger.  Perhaps if you're sat on the next Buddy Holly Airways (aka Ryanair) flight to Tenerife waiting to take off and the Pilot announces "Dear Passengers, there's some D1ckhead flying a bloody great drone over the airfield that'll really spoil our day if it goes down the intake - I'll do my best to dodge it.  Please get off now if you don't want to risk it" you might feel differently.  I've a suspicion that any sane Pilot will be at the head of the exodus.

Should you feel capable of defending the scrote responsible for recent events at LGW in a court of law then do please let me know when the case is, as I'll be sure to come along and watch.  It should be quite entertaining.

 

Nothing that we have heard over two days of reporting has suggested that the drone(s) have been flown anywhere near the flightpath/take-off trajectory of the aircraft.

 

The operators knew perfectly well that the airport would close down at the mere sight of the drones in proximity to the runway, so they did not need to endanger an aircraft - just show that they had the capability to endanger an aircraft. It's not the same thing.

 

I am absolutely not defending their actions. I was criticising some inaccurate reporting.

 

Anyway, the police seem to have some suspects. So we will indeed be able to see how this plays out in court and whether the existing legislation is sufficient.

[Liam]

Finally arrived at our hotel in The Gambia at around 22:45 last night. We were supposed to arrive here at c.15:00 on Thursday, but hey ho. Now to enjoy Christmas in the African climate.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not difficult for me, I didn’t have to make the decision, I’ve no doubt I’d be on the same page as the air traffic team and airport operations team that did though. I doubt you’re better qualified than the Air traffic controller who made the call to cease operations to determine and manage the risks that occurred.

Once again, you seem to have difficulty reading what has been written.

 

I totally support the actions of the Air Traffic Controllers/Airport Operators. As anybody would. But that is not relevant to my comments about the subsequent legal consequences.

[Sir TophamHatt]

If any of these drones have been "captured", it will be interesting to discover where they were made....

 

 

American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

Edited December 22, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[Mallard60022]

A 'fairly ordinary person' wouldn't do something such as this.  It takes someone determined to disrupt with no thought to others.

 

In recent times we've seen planes, cars and vans used as weapons in different circumstances, whoever is in power cannot foresee just what someone determined will do next and by what means. We already have someting approaching 24 hour surveillance...(that caught the Russians out recently) but just much further do you want the state to go looking for someone who 'might' be a problem sometime in the future.

 

 

As far as it takes to protect thee and me. I'm not talking about every single inch being surveilled, but this was/is Gatwick and its' vulnerability proves that the thinking at least one step ahead is not taking place as well as it could and that has been spoken about by many folk since this started. Many people are baffled that contingencies were not in place for this particular busy period although I can not  accept that this would not have been on the expected to happen list.

I await the outcome about the motives of these people they have found and the sort of people they are. If they are terrorists I shall apologise to you in a second. I do not think they are, I think they are clever people but in a very negative way; ordinary in that 'you' (not you) might even work with them or meet them in the pub. I accept though that they then may not be ordinary people in their thinking and it would seem they were not on the radar from what the authorities claim so it is intriguing.

P

Edited December 22, 2018 by Mallard60022

[Legend]

Nothing that we have heard over two days of reporting has suggested that the drone(s) have been flown anywhere near the flightpath/take-off trajectory of the aircraft.

 

The operators knew perfectly well that the airport would close down at the mere sight of the drones in proximity to the runway, so they did not need to endanger an aircraft - just show that they had the capability to endanger an aircraft. It's not the same thing.

 

I am absolutely not defending their actions. I was criticising some inaccurate reporting.

 

Anyway, the police seem to have some suspects. So we will indeed be able to see how this plays out in court and whether the existing legislation is sufficient.

It was deliberately designed to cause chaos . It disrupted the plans of many innocent people , holidays looked forward to, travelling home for Christmas , people missing funerals . Worry , inconvenience , I rather like the suggestion on here that the sentence be one day for every persons travel disrupted ( for many people it’s 2 or 3 days at the airport. There’s a Westjet Aircraft from Canada , got diverted to Glasgow, set off again last night , when the drone reappeared got sent back to Glasgow, must be going on for 48 hrs disruption). This act in itself is bad enough , whether or not the drone was actually on the flight path . Throw the book at them !

[Bon Accord]

The problem with so many of the "hang em high" comments made on this forum with regard to consequences and sentencing for these individuals - if they are ever caught and convicted - is that effectively many posters on here are advocating a particularly harsh sentence for an act which didn't cause any death or destruction, just merely annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people.

Compare that for example with some of the single figure/suspended etc sentences handed out regularly for those found guilty of crimes such as a rape, serious assault, child neglect, death by dangerous driving, manslaughter etc. All of which I would consider far more serious than somone missing a few days of their holidays.

I think more than a few of us need something of a sense of perspective in that regard rather than foaming at the mouth as befits the Daily Mail comments page.

Joseph Pestell makes a number of salutory legal points which certain people seem determined to twist and contrive out of all proportion.

The length of time it has taken to get the airport up and running again, coupled with the authorities and military seemingly helpless to do anything acts as a huge advertisement to wrong-uns everywhere at just how easy it is to cause serious mayhem. One thing is for certain and that is this won't be the last time drones are used in such a manner.

[PhilJ W]

It looks as if the police were waiting for them last night. The perpetrators were arrested soon after the airport shut down and then the shutdown was only one hour.