Drone Photo

Strangely, I saw a BBC News item yesterday where the right-hand side of the picture was live aerial footage of Gatwick airport. The presenter commented that the authorities were still trying to identify the drone's operators. I just wondered how the aerial footage was being obtained!
 
Well they have two in custody this morning but not heard much else. What a farce though, good job the drones weren't carrying explosives as part of a terrorist attack though eh? I can't believe in this day and age they army couldn't have dropped that from the sky in seconds. Whatever happened to EMF pulse fields lol
 
yep. Culprit caught this morning!

DRONE-6.jpg
 
nabsim said:
Well they have two in custody this morning but not heard much else. What a farce though, good job the drones weren't carrying explosives as part of a terrorist attack though eh? I can't believe in this day and age they army couldn't have dropped that from the sky in seconds. Whatever happened to EMF pulse fields lol
Click to expand...
A police marksman was on the news yesterday explaining why not:
  • If they'd shot it down from a ground-level firing position, they could not say with any certainty that the bullet would not endanger innocent lives and/or property -- particularly if they hit the drone, which would deflect the bullet.
  • They couldn't use EM countermeasures as that would have disrupted lawful communications, particularly between the ATC and the aircraft they were trying to keep safe.
  • Entanglement solutions, such as nets fired from a helicopter or a bigger drone, were expensive and not readily available (but I have a feeling they just might be if another incident occurs); and they haven't had enough time to raise and train eagles!
The only viable method that I could see at the time was to get above the drone to shoot it down as they could then ensure that the rounds used would strike the ground somewhere safe.
 
GeoffL said:
A police marksman was on the news yesterday explaining why not:
  • If they'd shot it down from a ground-level firing position, they could not say with any certainty that the bullet would not endanger innocent lives and/or property -- particularly if they hit the drone, which would deflect the bullet.
  • They couldn't use EM countermeasures as that would have disrupted lawful communications, particularly between the ATC and the aircraft they were trying to keep safe.
  • Entanglement solutions, such as nets fired from a helicopter or a bigger drone, were expensive and not readily available (but I have a feeling they just might be if another incident occurs); and they haven't had enough time to raise and train eagles!
The only viable method that I could see at the time was to get above the drone to shoot it down as they could then ensure that the rounds used would strike the ground somewhere safe.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure, I am fairly certain if that was near the Pentagon it wouldn't have been a problem, it could be blocked or knocked out with radio waves, they can be very directional and interfering with aircraft would not have been a problem as they were all grounded. Well I certainly hope they can do it or you can guess where the next terror threats are coming from
 
nabsim said:
I am not so sure, I am fairly certain if that was near the Pentagon it wouldn't have been a problem, it could be blocked or knocked out with radio waves, they can be very directional and interfering with aircraft would not have been a problem as they were all grounded. Well I certainly hope they can do it or you can guess where the next terror threats are coming from
Click to expand...
FWIW, I know from experience gained while conducting exercises with US armed forces that Americans are inclined to shoot first, ask questions later and worry a lot less about 'collateral damage'. In contrast, UK forces tend to worry about the witch-hunt that is almost certain in the event of 'collateral damage'. I suspect that in the US, collateral damage would be blamed on the drone, while in UK collateral damage would be blamed on those who took the drone down. In short, while the capability to shoot down a rogue drone exists, UK authorities are less likely to use it until the threat the drone imposes at least equals the risk of collateral damage. The Gatwick drone presented (albeit massive) inconvenience with no risk to life and so the risk of collateral damage exceeded the intrinsic risk from the drone. However, I suspect that a terrorist attack with an explosives-laden drone would be met more rapidly and with considerably more force that the one at Gatwick.

Edited to add: While the EM countermeasures can be directional, they would have taken out essential communications: Gatwick to NATS; Gatwick ground; Gatwick ATIS; emergency services locally to the Gatwick area; mobile telephony; etc. Don't forget that Gatwick provides service to much more than Gatwick airport, including radar services for Heathrow. Also, the controlled airspace that Gatwick Tower is responsible for has a ceiling of 4,000 ft. Aircraft under NATS control were still operating above that and were in danger of interference from any EM countermeasures aimed at the drone.
 
Last edited:
What I dont understand is why they didnt just follow it with their own drone. These things only have a limited flight time so presumably its landing somewhere where its owner is. If they had a couple of rozzers standing by once they are tracking it they could relay the directions to them and hopefully catch them before they cleared off once it lands.

Or. Just follow it with another drone until its over the airfield or open ground and just smash into it. I gather they are quite sensitive to being battered and it wouldnt take much to bring one down.
 
I’d like to see the perps handed over to some of the stranded people and let them kick the .... out of them, then hang the remains off the perimeter fencing. They will only get a slap on the wrist from the authorities. Thank you www.vigilantes-r-us.co.uk
 
barryd said:
What I dont understand is why they didnt just follow it with their own drone. These things only have a limited flight time so presumably its landing somewhere where its owner is. If they had a couple of rozzers standing by once they are tracking it they could relay the directions to them and hopefully catch them before they cleared off once it lands.

Or. Just follow it with another drone until its over the airfield or open ground and just smash into it. I gather they are quite sensitive to being battered and it wouldnt take much to bring one down.
Click to expand...

On one of the news items on BBC they stated the drone had been up for 11 hours!!!!!! I didn't think that flight time was possible unless it was maybe military equipment so presumably someone typed the report wrongly
 
nabsim said:
On one of the news items on BBC they stated the drone had been up for 11 hours!!!!!! I didn't think that flight time was possible unless it was maybe military equipment so presumably someone typed the report wrongly
Click to expand...
11 hours! That puts things in a different light!

RC Hobby Review has a list of the ten hobby drones with the longest flight times, and the longest of those is only 40 minutes. However, it also lists a drone normally used for aerial surveillance (the HyDrone 1550) that has an operating time of 3 hours and also has some tips on extending operating time -- but even so, I can't see anything that the general public could afford to buy staying up for 11 hours.
 
GeoffL said:
11 hours! That puts things in a different light!

RC Hobby Review has a list of the ten hobby drones with the longest flight times, and the longest of those is only 40 minutes. However, it also lists a drone normally used for aerial surveillance (the HyDrone 1550) that has an operating time of 3 hours and also has some tips on extending operating time -- but even so, I can't see anything that the general public could afford to buy staying up for 11 hours.
Click to expand...
Thats what I thought when I heard it, I know military probably have much better than public but my cheapo drone would only stay up about 7 minutes if I had the skill to last that long ha ha. Must have been typed wrong when they did the research, 11 hours is long, I cant remember if it was the same morning they had the ex police marksman on or if it was the morning before
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top