https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754

Tens of thousands of passengers have been disrupted by drones flying over one of the UK's busiest airports.

Gatwick's runway has been shut since Wednesday night, when two devices were seen flying over the perimeter fence.

The airport said a drone had been spotted "in the last hour" and the runway would not open "until it was safe to do so".

About 110,000 passengers on 760 flights were due to fly on Thursday. Disruption could last "several days".
Those due to travel have been told to check the status of their flight, while Easyjet told its passengers not to go to Gatwick if their flights have been cancelled.

Looks like a sustained effort to cause maximum disruption. It will be interesting to see where this leads in the UK regarding the availability of UAVs for the general public.

Been watching this unfold on news channels here, apparently the authorities suspect two drones being flown at intervals, probably on pre-programmed flight paths.

I'd think it would be difficult to put that particular genie back in the box given the proliferation of them at this stage!

"Illegal to use or possess a drone without a permit. Illegal to import sell or rent a drone without a permit."

Could be done and I suspect will be.

Ron

"Illegal to use or possess a drone without a permit. Illegal to import sell or rent a drone without a permit."

For the type of drones that were used here, sure. These weren't DJI drones. Those are geofenced.

Apparently, you can hack drones if you've got the know how.

In this case it may be a "commercial" sized drone.

In this case it may be a "commercial" sized drone.

"Police have described the devices as “industrial” models and are treating the incident as “a deliberate act to disrupt the airport”.

Hacking is not necessary, and larger models are definitely more ideal.

The rumour mill here is in overdrive. Far more to this than casual aerial vandalism.

What is really worrying is the fact that none of the agencies were able to stop the drones from overflying the airport or even track them back to where they were launched from. It has exposed a massive hole in national security and the weaknesses in the security technology.

We have all come to believe what we see in blockbuster films, where everything that goes on around us can be monitored. Inspite of all the electronics, radar and security surrounding large airports, the people operating these drones were able to carry on for days, disrupting hundreds of flight and thousands of peoples lives. Dozens of police and vehicles were unable to find where they were coming from, and radar did not appear to be able to track them, even though air and ground monitoring radar is assumed to be quite sophisticated.

What would have happened if the drones were armed in some way or capable of dropping highly volatile dangerous chemicals. If there was no protection around a modern airport, how easy would it be to mount a concerted attack from inner cities onto government buildings, tourist centres, sports stadiums etc, where there would be even less aerial monitoring at low level.

Whatever happens now, the honeymoon period for drone users will be over and draconian measures are sure to be taken against usage and probably purchase.

As a postscript, two people were arrested this morning on suspicion of being involved, after military tracking equipment was brought in.

Roger

One of the reports of the arrest has stated that the couple were part of an ecological activist group and were from a nearby village due to be adversely affected by the planned expansion of the airport. Whatever it is, it's going to be interesting getting to the bottom of this one.

Andrew

What is really worrying is the fact that none of the agencies were able to stop the drones from overflying the airport or even track them back to where they were launched from. It has exposed a massive hole in national security and the weaknesses in the security technology.

How, exactly, would you do this?

How, exactly, would you do this?

Precisely, how would you do it? Which is why it is a big hole in the security!! Or are you asking me if I could do better than the security authorities? How would you do it exactly?

Roger

How about you don’t demand solutions when there may not even be a solution.

lots of conflicting reports circulating now, even one coming from Sussex Police from BBC
'A man and woman arrested in connection with drone sightings have been released without charge.

Sussex Police said there had been 67 reports of drone sightings - having earlier cast doubt on "genuine drone activity".

Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley said no footage of a drone had been obtained. And he said there was "always a possibility" the reported sightings of drones were mistaken.'

Hovering Kestrels?

Ron

Swamp gas.

The net result appears to be a tightening of the regulations,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46787730

Fun, they don't know who it was, the don't know exactly what kind of drone it was, they may never find out, and it may have not been a drone until people started seeing police drones.

This will totally solve the issue! /s

Now Heathrow ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713

Of course, people are now looking for drones at airports. Anything they see in the sky, the might report as a drone. I've had people point out drones to me there were actually airplanes.

Until there is any evidence of any drone other than someone saying "I think I saw a drone!" I remain skeptical. There is precedence for this. Remember the killer clowns scare?

Of course, people are now looking for drones at airports. Anything they see in the sky, the might report as a drone. I've had people point out drones to me there were actually airplanes.

Until there is any evidence of any drone other than someone saying "I think I saw a drone!" I remain skeptical. There is precedence for this. Remember the killer clowns scare?

There have been plenty of instances described both here and elsewhere about irresponsible behaviour by drone fliers. It comes as no surprise that the authorities are about to seriously clamp down on their acquisition, operation and ultimately competence/attitudes of their operators. When that happens, - possibly here in the UK first, there will be a ripple effect across the world as other authorities take similar steps, and those who do use their drones responsibly will be the ones that take the hit. The idiots will move on to find the next antisocial pastime. Casting aspersions of those reporting them doesn't help. The alternative is to wait until an aircraft is brought down, I'd rather something was done before that. The world got by without uncontrolled drone flying for thousands of years.

There have been plenty of instances described both here and elsewhere about irresponsible behaviour by drone fliers.

You're absolutely right, Steve, and you know how they differ? They found both the drones and the pilots responsible in those instances. So far, there is nothing here save for people's word that they "saw something".

Casting aspersions of those reporting them doesn't help.

Being wrong about seeing a drone doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you wrong about having thought you saw a drone.

The alternative is to wait until an aircraft is brought down, I'd rather something was done before that. The world got by without uncontrolled drone flying for thousands of years.

The world got by without automobiles and airplanes for thousands of years as well, and the risk of being in either of them is far greater than any risk a DJI drone poses.

You're absolutely right, Steve, and you know how they differ? They found both the drones and the pilots responsible in those instances. So far, there is nothing here save for people's word that they "saw something".

So the police should ignore any potential sightings?



Being wrong about seeing a drone doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you wrong about having thought you saw a drone.

Only if there wasn't a drone. Nobody has confirmed that there wasn't one.


The world got by without automobiles and airplanes for thousands of years as well, and the risk of being in either of them is far greater than any risk a DJI drone poses.

Maybe not true and we don't really want to find out with a catastrophy if that risk is significant. Nobody has said that it was (or wasn't) a DJI drone, but of course the media rushed to their photo libraries to get a picture of a DJI Phantom. Given the distance that the public might have seen a drone from at Gatwick, to be near the runways it would need to be a lot bigger than a small prosumer product. If one was launched with malicious intentions, it is possible that it would be much larger and possibly home-made.
Personally, even if I was due to fly at that time, I would rather that appropriate precautions were taken. Don't forget, a lot of people were inconvenienced but nobody was killed or injured throughout the event.

So the police should ignore any potential sightings?

Where did I give that idea. The police investigate all kinds of bullshit all the time. This is no difference. But you don't start passing laws making clown costumes illegal.

Only if there wasn't a drone. Nobody has confirmed that there wasn't one.

You seem to be pretty ignorant of the idea that one cannot prove a negative. If you think you can, then confirm that I cannot, in actuality, take off and fly like Superman. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Maybe not true and we don't really want to find out with a catastrophy

There won't be a catastrophe. A DJI drone, especially a Mavic or a Phantom, pose less risk than birds. And yet you'll board an airplane knowing there are birds about all the time. In fact, birds hit planes nearly every day, and since 1988, 200 people have been killed in plane incidents involving birds. I'd put that up against "killed by drone incidents" any day of the week.

Where did I give that idea. The police investigate all kinds of bullshit all the time. This is no difference. But you don't start passing laws making clown costumes illegal.

The police investigate all plausible reports. If a possible outcome of the reported situation is a risk to human safety (or less importantly property) the police take steps to minimise or remove that risk until they are satisfied it is safe to relax the measures. If the risk is a localised one (in this case to the environs of a passenger airport) then it is perfectly reasonable to restrict or ban that activity for as long as it is deemed necessary. Not sure why you are banging on about clowns costumes for but here we are talking about drones. The only connection here is that drones are generally non-essential flying objects with the possible exception of use by the emergecy services and certain responsible bodies e.g. surveying. Maybe the attitude to idiots demanding the right to fly toys around for pleasure having a higher priority than safety of the general public is the norm where you are but not here, - apart from the few idiots who want to do it here but they aren't stupid anough to make a fuss.

You seem to be pretty ignorant of the idea that one cannot prove a negative. If you think you can, then confirm that I cannot, in actuality, take off and fly like Superman. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Nobody here can prove that a drone was there, so by your reckoning, if anybody sees something serious they'd better not report it if they don't have the evidence set in stone. Luckily, the police don't put that sort of interpretation on event her otherwise it would be a paradise for anybody who wanted to do dangerous things where they could leave little or no evidence.

There won't be a catastrophe. A DJI drone, especially a Mavic or a Phantom, pose less risk than birds. And yet you'll board an airplane knowing there are birds about all the time. In fact, birds hit planes nearly every day, and since 1988, 200 people have been killed in plane incidents involving birds. I'd put that up against "killed by drone incidents" any day of the week.

You seem to be hung up on 'drones' meaning toys like Phantoms or even Mavics. You also seem to be assuming the role of an expert on object hitting planes in flight. Maybe the news coverage of the events here didn't reach you, (or maybe it was Americanised by Fox) so I'll just leave you with your expert knowledge that drones are just like birds and they dont hurt planes, and of course people get killed by plane crashes, so two wrongs in your mind make a right. Conversation over.

The police investigate all plausible reports.

Police were investigating kids claiming clowns were stalking them. Since that's "plausible" then what's "plausible" ceases to have any real meaning.

Nobody here can prove that a drone was there, so by your reckoning, if anybody sees something serious they'd better not report it if they don't have the evidence set in stone.

The worst thing that airports have done is the "See Something, Say Something" signage. I bet this has led to absolutely nothing as far as making people safer, but has definitely led to people, say, reporting on Middle Eastern men doing math.

Luckily, the police don't put that sort of interpretation on event her otherwise it would be a paradise for anybody who wanted to do dangerous things where they could leave little or no evidence.

That's ridiculously wrong.

You seem to be hung up on 'drones' meaning toys like Phantoms or even Mavics.

If the proposed regulations didn't target them, I wouldn't be referencing those. But they do.

You also seem to be assuming the role of an expert on object hitting planes in flight. Maybe the news coverage of the events here didn't reach you, (or maybe it was Americanised by Fox) so I'll just leave you with your expert knowledge that drones are just like birds and they dont hurt planes, and of course people get killed by plane crashes, so two wrongs in your mind make a right. Conversation over.

This entire paragraph is laughably absurd. Try again, this time with less hysterics and, if you think you score points by referencing watching Fox to someone who doesn't watch cable news at all, think again. What's next, Steve? Going to go mock George Clooney for being unattractive to women?

And you can go ahead and list all the drones that have brought down a plane so far. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Here's a really good article about what I think is really going on here.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-ufo-reports-change-with-technology-times-180968011/

Just replace "drone" with "UFO". Thankfully, none of these reports (such as people reporting seeing a UFO over O'Hare in 2006) resulted in shutting down an airport, although UFO reports have shut down airports in China.

The Heathrow incident is now under investigation. I will predict that, like Gatwick, there will be nothing.

I gather the Heathrow drone was seen by a BBC news cameraman who uses drones for his work. I can't speak for the videos that showed what looked like a drone at the airport.

Certainly mass "sightings" have a history, however, you can only go on what observers say and if their background makes them credible. There can be explanations for sightings, although drones are more likely objects than flying saucers and they have distinctive lights at night.

you can only go on what observers say and if their background makes them credible.

There are plenty of people with credible backgrounds who make all kinds of crazy claims. That's a terrible way to consider the validity of someone's mere word. There are former Air Force officers claiming that aliens are messing with our nuclear arsenal. In your opinion, their background as being an officer in the Air Force and serving at these silo locations, makes them credible?

Conspiracy theories are rather different to possible visual/optical/natural artifacts that may result in misreporting or possible misuse of drones by users.

Drones near airports or flight paths is currently regarded as a potential threat by aviation and the security forces. Drones have been used to supply drugs etc to prisoners. so it's a quite possible for them to be used for other illegal purposes.

Conspiracy theories are rather different to possible visual/optical/natural artifacts that may result in misreporting or possible misuse of drones by users.

These aren't "conspiracy theories"...these are people who have claimed to see aliens messing with our nuclear arsenal first hand. You, of course, would give their opinion great weight, right, Brian?

Drones near airports or flight paths is currently regarded as a potential threat by aviation and the security forces. Drones have been used to supply drugs etc to prisoners. so it's a quite possible for them to be used for other illegal purposes.

Your two comments don't make any sort of connection. Of course, the latter references a story in which the drone operator was caught and admitted it. His name is Brandon Smith. What is the name of the drone operator who flew at Gatwick? Heathrow? I'll wait.

You have to take into account the likelihood of such an event and what other factors might contribute to their belief that aliens.were visiting earth.

The police have factored in that it could be a mass delusion by people believing that they saw something. At the moment, they seem to have an open mind, although a drone at some point seems to be regarded as a likely cause, although perhaps not all of the sightings.

Headline this morning:

Heathrow: Man charged with flying drone near airport

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46935933

Just like the police took those two people in at Gatwick and then had to release them. If Mr. Rusu was flying a DJI drone without modification, then he was flying far enough away where the geofencing didn’t apply. There’s nothing to indicate how far this “near” field was.

It wasn't even a drone, it was a Tundra RC model airplane, which doesn't have geofencing.

"George Rusu, 38, was branded "reckless" after admitting flying the £160 Tundra model aircraft 500 metres from the perimeter fence of Britain's busiest airport on Christmas Eve.

Police spotted the white and purple plane, which has a wingspan of around one metre, soaring close to the airport's Leonardo Hotel, a court heard."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heathrow-drone-suspect-who-caused-13892314

Many of the rules for model aircraft are the same as for "drones", since both are unmanned aircraft.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Model-aircraft/

Here's a really good article about what I think is really going on here.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-ufo-reports-change-with-technology-times-180968011/

Just replace "drone" with "UFO". Thankfully, none of these reports (such as people reporting seeing a UFO over O'Hare in 2006) resulted in shutting down an airport, although UFO reports have shut down airports in China.

The Heathrow incident is now under investigation. I will predict that, like Gatwick, there will be nothing.
+1

Mass hysteria & media frenzy are the root cause of the incidents. Over the years UFO sightings that were actually weather balloons etc demonstrate how difficult it is for people to judge the size of objects in the sky with no point of reference. Balloons, plastic carrier bags, all manner of objects blowing around could have been seen & interpreted as drones not UFOs.

The only drone we can be sure was at Gatwick was the one flown by Sussex Police.

+1

Mass hysteria & media frenzy are the root cause of the incidents. Over the years UFO sightings that were actually weather balloons etc demonstrate how difficult it is for people to judge the size of objects in the sky with no point of reference. Balloons, plastic carrier bags, all manner of objects blowing around could have been seen & interpreted as drones not UFOs.

The only drone we can be sure was at Gatwick was the one flown by Sussex Police.

People are always going to report things that they don't understand using references to things that they are more familiar with, be it ancient times or modern. There are also those who will say that they don't believe it because they didn't see it themselves. As regards mass hysteria, that is usually wheeled out to explain why groups of people reported events that aren't believed by those that weren't there, along with weather balloons and the planet Venus. I have yet to see any scientific evidence to prove mass hysteria was the reason for UFO reports, even though I have had an interest in the subject since early teens. Most reports though not all, can be explained with commonsense and a little investigation. I also have a close friend who was a fighter pilot with the Canadian Airforce and also was one of the longest serving long haul pilots with Air Canada, who has had some very thought provoking experiences.

Over the years, I have seen many unusual things that people near me couldn't understand, although to me it was quite clear what they were, including twice seeing weather balloons at high altitude, aircraft landing lights that appeared to be stationary as they turned, police helicopter searchlights, and chinese lanterns to name a few. However, as a pilot and drone flyer, if I saw a drone flying near an airfield and reported it, I would be pretty miffed to be told that I had seen a plastic bag blown by the wind.

Roger

Hovering Kestrels could be one false alarm.

Ron

Whether it was or not someone had to make a decision what to do. Very big responsibility if you get it wrong. What if.....?

I guarantee you the security staff at Gatwick is, at this very moment, getting reports from random passengers who are claiming they see a drone.

Somebody reported a drone in Dubai, they took action, couldn't verify it, reopened in 30 minutes.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/dubai-airport-briefly-halts-flights-after-drone-spotted/

People are always going to report things that they don't understand using references to things that they are more familiar with, be it ancient times or modern. There are also those who will say that they don't believe it because they didn't see it themselves. As regards mass hysteria, that is usually wheeled out to explain why groups of people reported events that aren't believed by those that weren't there, along with weather balloons and the planet Venus. I have yet to see any scientific evidence to prove mass hysteria was the reason for UFO reports, even though I have had an interest in the subject since early teens. Most reports though not all, can be explained with commonsense and a little investigation. I also have a close friend who was a fighter pilot with the Canadian Airforce and also was one of the longest serving long haul pilots with Air Canada, who has had some very thought provoking experiences.

Over the years, I have seen many unusual things that people near me couldn't understand, although to me it was quite clear what they were, including twice seeing weather balloons at high altitude, aircraft landing lights that appeared to be stationary as they turned, police helicopter searchlights, and chinese lanterns to name a few. However, as a pilot and drone flyer, if I saw a drone flying near an airfield and reported it, I would be pretty miffed to be told that I had seen a plastic bag blown by the wind.

Roger
Well Roger, it looks like the police will have better powers soon to ban the flying of drones without explicit permission within the ATZ (air traffic zone) of a licenced aerodrome. There will also be a similar ban on flying within 2.5NM of the runway(s) centre line(s) extended out 5km from each end. The police will also have stop (ordering a flier to land a drone immediately) and search powers for papers, and of premises and drone flight information. It may be a disappointment for the sensible ones (twas always the way) but there are other antisocial and criminal issues with drones that will at last be able to be controlled.

The trouble is though Steve that no amount of bans and police powers will stop those that want to fly outside the law doing so. Rules and regs are one thing but enforcement is another, as witnessed by criminal and anti social behaviour across society as a whole.

The existing rules regarding drone flying are already quite restrictive, but as you say, it will mean a number of new restrictions on those happy to fly within the regulations, but probably little or no effect on those who have no regard for the law.

Roger

None of these new rules will stop phantom drone sightings.

The trouble is though Steve that no amount of bans and police powers will stop those that want to fly outside the law doing so. Rules and regs are one thing but enforcement is another, as witnessed by criminal and anti social behaviour across society as a whole.

The existing rules regarding drone flying are already quite restrictive, but as you say, it will mean a number of new restrictions on those happy to fly within the regulations, but probably little or no effect on those who have no regard for the law.

Roger

Regrettably, it is unlikely to completely shut down irresponsible drone use but the upcoming mandatory registration will gradually reduce unregistered kit from the field as stop and search starts to bite.

Seems they're also looking at a possible "inside job" or someone who knows the airport's procedures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47919680

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003vwg

Looks like a little information spun badly. Airport communications are pretty easy to listen into as thousands of enthusiasts already know. Airband is for safety reasons not encrypted. Some of the grounds services are though, and that includes many of the security and confidential ops - they know they can be listened into and over the past few years have gradually been made much more secure. They're trying to shift the blame from them having systems that are prone to disruption from a five hundred quid Argos drone, to a special one that doesn't show up on the new mega expensive radar.

It's quite laughable really. They had plans, but they were clearly poor ones.