Gatwick airport closed by drone attack

[ryzno]

This thread got me wondering whether we're going to see a drone flying around the field during the superbowl to disrupt the game. Or one carrying a package of explosives up over stadium walls and into the crowd (or at an open-air concert).

If our weather continues as is. The Mercedes Benz stadiums roof will be closed during the Super Bowl.
You know we don't like the cold or rain and our weather people said we have a good chance of getting some odd thing called snow.

 

[Danoff]

If our weather continues as is. The Mercedes Benz stadiums roof will be closed during the Super Bowl.
You know we don't like the cold or rain and our weather people said we have a good chance of getting some odd thing called snow.

Just sayin'... it was great.

 

[ExigeEvan]

At this point in time I'd consider the craft isn't being remotely piloted but is instead operating on a pre-planned pattern and return to base. To further ruggedise it against jamming you could operate with inertial navigation instead of GPS.

What you're left with then is something that is very difficult to soft-kill.

Tracking is difficult enough given the small size, low altitude and low thermal signature.

Someone has put some thought into this, but it's really not a complicated affair to implement any of the above.

Need some frickin' lasers.

 

[TexRex]

Just sayin'... it was great.

He was used to it...Minneapolis and all.

 

[Dotini]

Despite authorities deploying the finest anti drone technology the world has to offer, the damn thing flew over again and flashed its ****ing lights!
The effrontery is insufferable.

Gatwick Airport was forced to suspend flights for just over an hour following another drone sighting on Friday evening.

Sussex Police said they were "deploying significant resources to seek and locate the drone and its operator" but there were reports that the culprits were taunting officers by flying overhead while flashing their lights.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...test-police-compensation-runway-a8693876.html

 

[Dennisch]

This will surely be a regular thing from now on.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This will surely be a regular thing from now on.

Which is why we need to bring the death penalty back.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I feel like this was the moment the differentiates being able to get away with it vs. getting caught.

It seems you were right... man and woman arrested over drone incursion.

 

[Robin]

Apparently one of the perpetrators was wearing a high vis vest.

Always make sure your your in high vis when half the army are after you...

 

[UKMikey]

I hope they've arrested the right people.

That's awkward.

Sounds like Pop is a victim of Muphry's Law (sic).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sounds like Pop is a victim of Muphry's Law (sic).

My favourite from that link is "In 2009, the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hand-wrote a letter of condolence to a mother whose son had died in Afghanistan, in which he misspelled the deceased's surname. The Sun (a tabloid newspaper) published a vitriolic article criticising his lack of care. In this article, the paper misspelled the same name and was forced to publish an apology of its own".

 

[TexRex]

Sounds like Pop is a victim of Muphry's Law (sic).

Little bit.

My favourite from that link is "In 2009, the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hand-wrote a letter of condolence to a mother whose son had died in Afghanistan, in which he misspelled the deceased's surname. The Sun (a tabloid newspaper) published a vitriolic article criticising his lack of care. In this article, the paper misspelled the same name and was forced to publish an apology of its own".

Heh.

 

[eran0004]

And, as I said, 37mph is well, well below the speeds commercial drones can reach. Racing drones can hit 160mph+. Wind the power pack and motors up - it's not like you need the battery life - and 37mph average over 200m is well within the performance envelope.

Realistically (i.e. without infinite thrust) you need at least 20 m/s and between 80 and 100 N.

 

[Famine]

Realistically (i.e. without infinite thrust) you need at least 20 m/s and between 80 and 100 N.

Which is, still, well within the performance envelope of a racing drone - and, if you don't care about battery life because you're going to fly it into a plane and explode it, upgrade the motors and wind everything up to the maximum, it's well within the performance envelope of a flying bomb.

There's a Nissan GT-R branded drone which will do 0-60mph in 1.3 seconds. We're not talking about a performance problem here.

 

[Populuxe]

It seems you were right... man and woman arrested over drone incursion.

In all likelihood, they are just a couple of malcontents who found a way to take their anger out on a hundred thousand complete strangers. But if this were a move script, then they would be operatives disrupting a plane from departing on time so a specific passenger would miss an important meeting.

 

[eran0004]

Which is, still, well within the performance envelope of a racing drone - and, if you don't care about battery life because you're going to fly it into a plane and explode it, upgrade the motors and wind everything up to the maximum, it's well within the performance envelope of a flying bomb.

There's a Nissan GT-R branded drone which will do 0-60mph in 1.3 seconds. We're not talking about a performance problem here.

I don’t think a racing drone would be the best choice, since their weight is typically less than 500 g. Increasing that by 600% could lead to maneuverability issues. Better to go for something that’s made to lift some weight. The DJI S900 could potentially do the job.

 

[Famine]

I don’t think a racing drone would be the best choice, since their weight is typically less than 500 g.

It wouldn't, but that's really not the point. The point is that even commercial drones already can fly that fast and accelerate that fast - and that's before you get into considerations of a purpose-made drone that exists only for a 40-second flight to take off and smash into an aircraft committed to take off, while carrying a pound of Semtex and a video camera for first-person guidance right into the cockpit glass or an engine.

There's a lot of speculation about these drones and their operators, but it seems that they were not stock items and were already modified to fly outside of the usual frequencies. Once you acknowledge that these are not customer items, you have to assume the capabilities are not standard commercial limitations either.

Increasing that by 600% could lead to maneuverability issues.

Maybe, but you're looking at a first-person controlled strike weapon that only needs to fly in a straight line at a 150+-ton aircraft and hit it with explosives at a point where it cannot do anything about it, not a Red Bull Air Race of drones.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Realistically (i.e. without infinite thrust) you need at least 20 m/s and between 80 and 100 N.

Which is realistically (relatively easily) achievable. Drones (even industrial-spec ones) are quick and manouevrable, even with a payload, certainly to the limits of getting a couple of hundred meters to a pre-planned point. It's hard on the battery life but in this scenario it's not something that's too worrisome. Getting close to a runway is easy. Finding the "sweet" point on the runway is easy using any of a number of normal control methods. Getting the drone is easy if you have money, that's second-hand-car money at most, not lottery-win money. Getting a bomb is the only hard part but sadly that's where the kind of people who'd undertake such an attack value their contacts the most.

You should have a play with a drone or watch some YobTub videos of people using various types - from all your previous comments I think you'll be surprised how quickly they travel and how well they handle. And how much they can carry.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Telegraph, The Sun and no doubt many other media outlets have published the names and pictures of a couple that have been arrested in connection with the drone incidents at Gatwick airport.

While I believe that the perpetrators of this incident deserve severe punishment, likely imprisonment, I don't think it is fair to publish names and pictures before any charges have been brought, let alone any verdict of guilt.

The boss of the man in question has apparently said that he doesn't believe it could have been him, as he was working at the time of much of the disruption.

 

[Populuxe]

While I believe that the perpetrators of this incident deserve severe punishment, likely imprisonment, I don't think it is fair to publish names and pictures before any charges have been brought, let alone any verdict of guilt.

I strongly agree with this. It's shoddy journalism to jump the gun like this.

 

[Rage Racer]

 

[Touring Mars]

The couple arrested in connection with the drone incidents at Gatwick (and named in the UK press already) have been released without charge.

 

[Dotini]

...from The Guardian:

Detectives hunting for those behind the drone chaos that paralysed Gatwick airport have released the only two people they have arrested and declared them innocent.

Sussex police said on Sunday that the man and woman had been released without charge and ruled out of their inquiries.

It means whoever flew the drones so close to Gatwick that Christmas flights had to be cancelled is still at large.

Following the most disruptive incident ever caused by a drone at a major international airport, detectives interviewed the 47-year-old man and 54-year-old woman from Crawley as forensic officers searched a house in the West Sussex town, three miles south of Gatwick.

A series of drone sightings above its runway had forced Britain’s second-largest airport to shut three times in three days last week, leaving about 140,000 passengers stranded. It was the airport’s biggest disruption since the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud of 2010.

Gatwick airport is offering a £50,000 reward for information leading to the capture of the culprits.

Meanwhile, the two suspects who were pictured and named by some news outlets will try to return to their normal lives.

Police emphasised that the two people they had arrested had cooperated fully after being detained in the high-profile investigation.

In a statement, Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley, of Sussex police, said: “Both people have fully co-operated with our inquiries and I am satisfied that they are no longer suspects in the drone incidents at Gatwick.

“It is important to remember that when people are arrested in an effort to make further inquiries it does not mean that they are guilty of an offence and Sussex police would not seek to make their identity public.

“Our inquiry continues at a pace to locate those responsible for the drone incursions, and we continue to actively follow lines of investigation.

“We ask for the public’s continued support by reporting anything suspicious, contacting us with any information in relation to the drone incidents at Gatwick.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...chaos-arrested-couple-released-without-charge

 

[McLaren]

I’m assuming this is the couple whose name and face was put out there? Very shoddy indeed; too much of a risk that some will harass them online without ever realizing they were declared innocent.

 

[Robin]

If I were them I wouldn't be too happy with my face plastered over pretty much every newspaper today like a criminal. Did the Police literally look up who likes drones the most in the Gatwick area on Facebook and arrest whoever came top?! It has been a bit of a shoddy operation and yet more embarrassment for the authorities.

 

[Touring Mars]

I would expect that the couple have a good case for suing the newspapers (notably The Sun and The Telegraph) who published their names and faces - it's completely unacceptable. Others, such as BBC News and Sky News didn't name them, but significantly did pitch up cameras outside their house - anyone with a bit too much time on their hands could locate their home using the images of their house and street... I reckon that is completely unacceptable as well, if not even worse than publishing their names.

 

[Robin]

Cliff Richard sprung to mind in all of this.

The DM went in pretty hard...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Police have told BBC News that there's another possibility they can't discount - No Drone. Interesting, I thought there were cast-iron witness reports/sightings? If police are correct in this statement then it wasn't seen by them or the military during their operation?

 

[UKMikey]

Police have told BBC News that there's another possibility they can't discount - No Drone. Interesting, I thought there were cast-iron witness reports/sightings? If police are correct in this statement then it wasn't seen by them or the military during their operation?

I suggest this conversation be moved to the UFO thread.

Just kidding.

 

[Dotini]

Misidentification of the planet Venus, light reflecting off a duck's bottom as well as mass hallucination and hoax now leap to the top of the possibilities!

With over 50 reported sightings, you've got a UFO case for the ages.

An officer investigating the drone chaos at Gatwick Airport says there is no footage of the device which sparked it and it is "a possibility" there never was one.

Asked about speculation there was never such a drone flown over the airport, Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley told the BBC: "Of course, that's a possibility. We are working with human beings saying they have seen something.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...ibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html

Edit:
Other than the video taken by a passenger in the departure lounge, not a single passenger has seen the object.

The only people who have reported to have seen the "drone" are either A: employees of the airport or B: some one in the security services.

So the possibility of human conspiracy cannot be excluded either.