Gatwick airport closed by drone attack

[Touring Mars]

The UK's 2nd busiest airport, Gatwick (London) has been closed due to a drone 'attack', causing massive disruption. At least one drone has been repeatedly flying into Gatwick's airspace, but some reports suggest that there was two or more drones. As I type, the drone is still flying over the airport.

The runways were closed at around 9pm last night, and while some flights were being allowed to land, the runways have mainly been closed and will not be fully re-opened until the drone has been taken down.

Over 100,000 people fly out or into Gatwick every day, hence the disruption is massive. Urgent questions are being raised in the UK Parliament, and police are currently searching for the perpetrator(s) of what is being described as a 'deliberate' and malicious attack.

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

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hopefully they'll just convict them of attempted mass murder.

 

[Famine]

As I type, the drone is still flying over the airport.

What on Earth is powering it!?

 

[FT-1]

What on Earth is powering it!?

Probably the sort of battery technology the Dualshock 4 could do with.

 

[Touring Mars]

What on Earth is powering it!?

Given that they seem to be having trouble even spotting it (let alone tracking it) I would imagine that the perps are using multiple drones and keeping the disruption to a maximum.

It seems hard to believe that there isn't better technology available to spot, track and remove drones from sensitive areas, but apparently there isn't a great deal they can do about it right now.

 

[Robin]

I'm surprised at the quickness to rule this out as terrorism because multiple drones invading airport airspace over a period of many hours seems like a coordinated effort to "terrorise".

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm surprised at the quickness to rule this out as terrorism because multiple drones invading airport airspace over a space of many hours seems like a coordinated effort to "terrorise".

Authorities are saying to the press that there's no terrorist connection, that doesn't mean they're not considering it inside their own operation. Given the severity of the response they're clearly taking the security aspect very seriously. It may compromise an ongoing investigation for them to tell us what they know. What's certainly true is that drone attacks have been mooted for some time as an effective way to deliver explosives to an aircraft relatively easily - getting near them in person (or package) is very difficult nowadays.

 

[Robin]

Authorities are saying to the press that there's no terrorist connection, that doesn't mean they're not considering it inside their own operation. Given the severity of the response they're clearly taking the security aspect very seriously. It may compromise an ongoing investigation for them to tell us what they know. What's certainly true is that drone attacks have been mooted for some time as an effective way to deliver explosives to an aircraft relatively easily - getting near them in person (or package) is very difficult nowadays.

I really hope they are looking at this carfeully, whatever they might be privy to that we aren't, because this doesn't at all sound like some prankster or YouTuber wanting a video! As far as I can recall this appears to be the biggest if not only consumer grade drone 'attack' on an airport since the technology has existed and it's a worrying step in the wrong direction.

 

[Tornado]

A drone attack? What problem does Obama have with that airport?

 

[zzz_pt]

Are the drones gas powered? Are the authorities still trying to shoot them down?

 

[Robin]

Apparently another one was just spotted in the last hour, it means the runway is still shut nearly 12 hours since this all started.

 

[Touring Mars]

Of course, the problem is that once a drone has been spotted over the airport, it doesn't even need to actually be there any more in order to prevent flights coming in or out. It seems the perps either already knew this or have figured it out, since all they need to do is make sure a drone is merely spotted in the no-fly zone for the airspace to remain closed. Some flights were allowed to land earlier today, but then the drone or drones re-appeared and forced the complete closure of the runways again.

 

[Dennisch]

Putin's new hobby.

 

[Dotini]

My guess its a cranky individual, perhaps a local neighbor annoyed by the noise of the airport. Has the airport changed landing or takeoff patterns recently?

 

[MatskiMonk]

My guess its a cranky individual, perhaps a local neighbor annoyed by the noise of the airport. Has the airport changed landing or takeoff patterns recently?

Environmental campaigners have been suggested, possibly in protest of expansion plans, though there's no evidence for this AFAIK.

 

[eran0004]

I'm surprised at the quickness to rule this out as terrorism because multiple drones invading airport airspace over a period of many hours seems like a coordinated effort to "terrorise".

This sounds more like sabotage than terrorism. If the goal was to make an airliner crash I imagine a “drone strike”
is a very inefficient method, because (1) it’s difficult to steer it into the path of the airliner, (2) you must avoid the drone being spotted, (3) if you manage to hit the airliner it will probably not do a lot of damage (equivalent to a bird strike, and most bird strikes are safe).

Depends on the size of the drone of course, but they’re usually small.

 

[Danoff]

How big are we talking about here?

If it's the former, I say let the planes take off and land and just ignore it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This sounds more like sabotage than terrorism. If the goal was to make an airliner crash I imagine a “drone strike”
is a very inefficient method, because (1) it’s difficult to steer it into the path of the airliner, (2) you must avoid the drone being spotted, (3) if you manage to hit the airliner it will probably not do a lot of damage (equivalent to a bird strike, and most bird strikes are safe).

Depends on the size of the drone of course, but they’re usually small.

You're right but you're excluding the scenario where something is attached to the drone that goes "bang". It's not difficult to predict where an airliner will be as it completes its take-off roll and, unfortunately, it's not difficult to have a drone there ready to create disaster. There's no suggest that's what's happening here (although one of the drones is said to be of industrial size) but it's the scenario where a drone is most dangerous.

 

[Famine]

If it's the former, I say let the planes take off and land and just ignore it.

I'm pretty sure ATC regulations on aircraft separation forbid it.

 

[Danoff]

I'm pretty sure ATC regulations on aircraft separation forbid it.

Because the drone is an aircraft?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Because the drone is an aircraft?

"Drone Expert" on the Radio said this is also why it cannot simply be shot down, because we can't just go shooting down aircraft.

 

[Danoff]

"Drone Expert" on the Radio said this is also why it cannot simply be shot down, because we can't just go shooting down aircraft.

Are kites aircraft? Is a birthday balloon technically a dirigible?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Are kites aircraft? Is a birthday balloon technically a dirigible?

Don't know, but things such as drones are subject to legislation > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made

edit
And from the Independent upon googling that...

"If you are using a drone for personnel use then you are governed by the Civilian Aviation Authority (CAA) Air Navigation Order 2016, specifically Article 241 (endangering the safety of any person or property), Article 94 (small unmanned aircraft) and Article 95 (small unmanned surveillance aircraft)," the guidance states.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-uk-rules-ban-flying-shoot-down-a8692081.html

 

[Danoff]

Don't know, but things such as drones are subject to legislation > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made

And from the Independent upon googling that...

"If you are using a drone for personnel use then you are governed by the Civilian Aviation Authority (CAA) Air Navigation Order 2016, specifically Article 241 (endangering the safety of any person or property), Article 94 (small unmanned aircraft) and Article 95 (small unmanned surveillance aircraft)," the guidance states.

Everything is subject to legislation, and everybody in the country is governed by those rules. I get what you're saying though.

 

[Famine]

Because the drone is an aircraft?

Yep. In fact the use of them comes under the CAA's purview.

 

[Danoff]

Yep. In fact the use of them comes under the CAA's purview.

Ok but... can we not distinguish between crashing airliners into other airliners and crashing airliners into plastic toys? I'm interested in knowing how much explosive one of these can carry. The payload is not really impressive. A firecracker wouldn't do much harm to an airliner.

 

[Famine]

Ok but... can we not distinguish between crashing airliners into other airliners and crashing airliners into plastic toys?

Unfortunately it's just one of those things. Both are classified as aircraft and the CAA has regulations on horizontal and vertical separation between aircraft. ATC can't launch a plane with that separation compromised.

I'm interested in knowing how much explosive one of these can carry. The payload is not really impressive. A firecracker wouldn't do much harm to an airliner.

I'm a little more concerned about what a lithium-ion battery would do if shredded by the engine blades than something carrying explosives. That aside, this is a 238mph impact between an ordinary DJI Phantom drone and the wing of a Mooney M20 light aircraft:



A Phantom 2 with a camera weighs around 2.4lb. Something like the DJI S900 comes in at more than 7lb and can lift an 11lb payload. So I guess it could carry 11lb of Semtex. For reference, Pan-Am Flight 103 (also known as the Lockerbie crash) was dropped by a pound of Semtex.

But this is more likely some eco group trying to stop flights by being a nuisance than actual terrorism.

 

[Danoff]

I'm a little more concerned about what a lithium-ion battery would do if shredded by the engine blades than something carrying explosives. That aside, this is a 238mph impact between an ordinary DJI Phantom drone and the wing of a Mooney M20 light aircraft:

The speed is a little high and the aircraft is a little small but it's pretty impressive anyway.

A Phantom 2 with a camera weighs around 2.4lb. Something like the DJI S900 comes in at more than 7lb and can lift an 11lb payload. So I guess it could carry 11lb of Semtex. For reference, Pan-Am Flight 103 (also known as the Lockerbie crash) was dropped by a pound of Semtex.

Excellent point. I wonder how directly applicable it is. Here's a quote from wikipedia on the lockerbie explosion: "Although the explosion was in the aircraft hold, the effect was magnified by the large difference in pressure between the aircraft's interior and exterior, i.e., uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage. The steering cables had been disrupted and the fuselage pitched downwards and to the left". 11lbs of payload is still a lot, so I'm sure if it was detonated at the right time, in the right way, it could do some real damage.

It's part of the reason that I'm asking about the size of the drone.

Here's the DJI S900

Here's the phantom 2

 

[eran0004]

You're right but you're excluding the scenario where something is attached to the drone that goes "bang". It's not difficult to predict where an airliner will be as it completes its take-off roll and, unfortunately, it's not difficult to have a drone there ready to create disaster. There's no suggest that's what's happening here (although one of the drones is said to be of industrial size) but it's the scenario where a drone is most dangerous.

It's pretty much impossible to predict where it's going to be, since there is no fixed ascent slope. It depends on how fast the aircraft is flying, what the ascent rate is, what the wind speed is and what position it had on the runway when it took off. You can estimate a cone in front of the runway, but that's about as close as you can get..

If you had radar guidance you could continuously adapt your position to that of the aircraft, but if your drone is also carrying a heavy payload of explosives it will not be very agile.

It's probably easier to target a landing aircraft, since there is one glide slope that everyone aims for. But if the drone is spotted before you've been able to target an aircraft then the airspace will be closed and that's the end of that plan.

 

[Danoff]

It's probably easier to target a landing aircraft, since there is one glide slope that everyone aims for. But if the drone is spotted before you've been able to target an aircraft then the airspace will be closed and that's the end of that plan.

Way easier. In fact, you could just put it in the glide path and wait for a plane to hit it. At busy airports, you can watch the planes stacked up on the incoming glide path in pairs or triplets. I've done this exercise at both DIA and LAX (it's easiest at night). You spot a pair or triplet of landing planes that are coming in mostly parallel along the approach glide path, and then just look back along the line and you'll see another pair or triplet on approach further back on the same slope. Look farther back and you'll see another set. There are 3 or maybe even 4 planes on that path approaching the runway for landing at any given time, staggered very predictably.

It's mind boggling that airports can handle that much traffic.

Actually come to think of it, one time when I was doing this I was pulled over on a freeway offramp, and planes would fly overhead at a low enough altitude that I could have had a drone at that height easily. Off of airport grounds.