My thoughts too. Stuff been going on in Germany too today.
Gatwick
- Thread starter Redline
- Start date
the drone I have for work is not a high end one at all, in comparison, but I have still flown mine at night as you can easily see the bright LED lights. You can also view using the First Person View on your iPad which streams live what the camera is seeing and that brightens everything in view even at night, see below. That was in darkness
Even the DJI Drone that I use can fly up to 2 km away using FPV . How can anyone spot the operator then? The rules are even changing now around FPV and the need to keep the drone in line of sight.
They could quite well have left it somewhere well out of sight, driven away and then controlled it from their back garden.
I don't believe this person was bothered about flying using the drone code. These higher end, rather than toy, drones already have GPS geofencing preventing people using them around airports, and a height limit of 500m, that limit is in the software even the legal 120m limit can easily be adjusted to 500m. obviously all this can be actively bypassed by someone in the know.
They can make as many rules as they like but they will be people that will not care about rules.
Even the DJI Drone that I use can fly up to 2 km away using FPV . How can anyone spot the operator then? The rules are even changing now around FPV and the need to keep the drone in line of sight.
They could quite well have left it somewhere well out of sight, driven away and then controlled it from their back garden.
I don't believe this person was bothered about flying using the drone code. These higher end, rather than toy, drones already have GPS geofencing preventing people using them around airports, and a height limit of 500m, that limit is in the software even the legal 120m limit can easily be adjusted to 500m. obviously all this can be actively bypassed by someone in the know.
They can make as many rules as they like but they will be people that will not care about rules.
Nothing would surprise me in this day and age.
I still can't believe our airports haven't put protection in place.
I mean, how hard would it be to weaponize a drone?
We know they're used to carry drugs and mobile phones into jails already.
Tony.
Tony.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Points
- 165
It is very difficult to bring down a drone without the potential for collateral damage. The one that is being used looks like it is one of the £5k professional ones. They can survive some damage and some can even compensate for losing a blade.
Shooting it with a rifle is next to impossible (drone is too erratic and where will the bullet finish?).
Shotgun (drone is too high). It's legally limited to 400feet, but it would appear that he is being a bad boy and flouting that law. My drone can climb to nearly 5000feet
Jamming the signal. Drones normally work at 2.4GHz and so does WiFi. Also, there is danger if it just drops from the sky.
I did see some software that can identify the exact frequency the drone is using and target the transmitter. I'm not sure why this isn't being used. Perhaps it doesn't work in the real world.
Shooting it with a rifle is next to impossible (drone is too erratic and where will the bullet finish?).
Shotgun (drone is too high). It's legally limited to 400feet, but it would appear that he is being a bad boy and flouting that law. My drone can climb to nearly 5000feet
I did see some software that can identify the exact frequency the drone is using and target the transmitter. I'm not sure why this isn't being used. Perhaps it doesn't work in the real world.
I remember when the RAF Regiment had bofors guns for airfield defence, just. Then rapiers, must be something smaller and high tech now. 
Initial response would be several watts on a directional antenna directly at the drone and spread across the whole 2.4 (and 5 GHz if using WiFi signals) and any other potential bands will knock out control of the drone by swamping the input stage on the receiver, even if it's a digital controller - am sure there will be ways of generating a random bit sequence that makes the original Tx output completely undecipherable.
It will then likely just hover due to loss of control input or return to its origin. Even if the transmitter is using a phased array it's output won't be enough to overcome a massive and directional power source. It will be a managed way of wrestling control away from a drone-pilot if need be keeping it hovering until it's power runs out. It is just a jamming exercise like any other.
Alternatively, I would have thought a GPS interference solution would likely upset the avionics controller. Implementing GPS offset is a standard way of upsetting GPS devices. The risk is that all GOS devices in the area will likely be upset including lots of comms systems that use the GPS 1pps and 10Mhz reference timing signals. That will include lots of systems used in and around airports and air-traffic control so would be a last resort I would have thought.
Then on the flip side of all of this, I don’t think I’ve seen one clear image of a drone at all. Just saying.
They have arrested a man and a woman in connection with the drones and Gatwick is fully operational again.
Likely so called "Eco warriors" I understand.
Heard a few moments of someone on the radio last night.
I hope all those poor people that have been affected take them to court for recovery of uninsured costs and damages. Then put them to work for the rest of their lives doing something for the public good.
Edit - On the basis that their actions were deliberate and ongoing then they should be charged with deliberately endangering an aircraft. Life imprisonment!
Last edited:
If, and I doubt it with the geofencing built into these nowadays, the first flight was inadvertent, .......the second and subsequent were all deliberate.
By then it was all over the news, so they knew what they were doing and the risk to life, and also the level of fines and imprisonment for this act, and yet they still carried on.
So whoever it was, needs the maximum 5 years sentence and the biggest fine they can get given to them.
They chose this continuation, so the maximum should be given to them
By then it was all over the news, so they knew what they were doing and the risk to life, and also the level of fines and imprisonment for this act, and yet they still carried on.
So whoever it was, needs the maximum 5 years sentence and the biggest fine they can get given to them.
They chose this continuation, so the maximum should be given to them
BBC News reports - being questioned on suspicion of disrupting civil aviation "to endanger or likely to endanger safety of operations or persons". That is way more serious than the flying a drone near an airport with up to life. Hope they can make it stick for those that have suffered.
They should be treated as common terrorists in my view after all that is what they doing.
Tony.
Tony.
Released today without charge and no longer suspects
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615
but not before Sunday papers went to town on them - now what was that principle of English Law - ah yes I remember "innocent until proven guilty." Should make a fortune in damages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615
but not before Sunday papers went to town on them - now what was that principle of English Law - ah yes I remember "innocent until proven guilty." Should make a fortune in damages.
It was clear from reports yesterday that the poor guy was working away when much of this was happening. Just happened to live nearby and happened to have a drone. The fact he has had and used remote control devices legally and safety for years seems to have gotten in the way of a quick arrest and good story.
Now, the next time our gutter press use s drone I think it might be used for target practice
