Slashdot Mirror
UK Now Has Systems To Combat Drones (bbc.com)
Detection systems are now able to be deployed throughout the UK to combat the threat of drones, ministers say. It follows three days of disruption at Gatwick airport last week, when drones were sighted near the runway. From a report: Security minister Ben Wallace said those who use drones "either recklessly or for criminal purposes" could expect "the most severe sentence". It comes after the couple arrested and released without charge over the chaos at Gatwick said they felt "violated". About 1,000 flights were affected during 36 hours of chaos at Gatwick airport last week. The airport has spent 5 million Pound ($6.36 million) since Wednesday on new equipment and technology to prevent copycat attacks.
No Evidence of an Actual Drone
So you think punishing somebody innocent is the solution to this problem? Because, you know, they only release people without charge if they have absolutely nothing on them...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It isn't hard to build anti-drone gear, assuming anti-missile lasers exist. Drones don't have anti-anti-missile gear.
Radio direction finders can locate transmitters in range. Lancaster bombers can then take out the one that suddenly runs away when you blow up the drone.
This not only removes the problem, but also puts on a vintage aircraft show.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Shotguns lack the range or accuracy.
To judge from the high death toll from vigilantes killing bystanders, so do many American gun owners.
No American I'd trust with a gun, and there are a few, would willingly fire off rounds at a tiny moving drone next to an aircraft filled with passengers and fuel.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ben Wallace filter: blah blah blah knee-jerk reaction bla bla bla.
I'm sure this was well thought out and the UK has purchased a system worth every pence.
That's the great thing about doing 'security'. You get to claim that going into pesky detail about what you did would aid the enemy and imperil the effectiveness of the defenses; which can keep scrutiny at bay well beyond the duration of your career.
In this case we can make some unflattering inferences, given that they apparently didn't have a remotely adequate system last week(or they would have used it rather than fail visibly for three days); and given that one tends not to put together a system of this sort of complexity in this amount of time(suggesting that, at best, a good plan was developed but then ignored; and more likely that the plan that supposedly exists now is ill tested and probably overstated); but barring a leak we won't see the specifics for at least a decade, probably several.
1. Mysterious drone appears (or not!) in the skies over Gatwick Airport...
2. ...Some days later, 5m is spent with an unnamed drone countermeasures company.
3. PROFIT!! (no ??? needed!)
https://youtu.be/QH0V7kp-xg0
Who is innocent? They were caught breaking the law.
No they weren't. They were arrested based on a "tip-off". There is no other evidence against them.
We really need to change the legal system in both the UK and US. The police should not be releasing names of people that are merely suspects, even when the police are under political pressure to show that they are "doing something".
This couple had their lives turned upside down. They had their names and faces plastered on news reports where they were called "morons", and blamed for "ruining Christmas". Yet the police had no evidence against them, and no justification for naming them to the press.
They should get a lawyer and sue for the mental distress caused by the police's reckless incompetence. That would be a no-brainer in America, but even in the UK, they might get a nice payout.
They are about as much danger as a bird, in worst case scenario you get some damage unless you have a flock of them. You donâ(TM)t want them in your jets but itâ(TM)s unlikely since the drones would be pushed out of the way by air currents.
Planes experience a lot more pressure from air resistance than a small drone could, as long as weâ(TM)re not talking about military predator drones the size of a small Cessna.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
What am I overlooking?
Public perception.
For many years mobile phones were banned on commercial flights in case there might be a problem of unspecified nature that may have been caused by the phone signals.
And it is the same here, there is practically no knowledge or hard facts about what damage a drone would do to an airliner. But it is far easier to simply ban them and then spin it as being "look, we've done something positive to make your lives safer" than it is to conduct research and then produce conclusions that some people will inevitably question, or doubt.
Especially as most people consider drones to be annoyances and therefore have an inbuilt hostility to them.
All this incident does is to send a message that something (which may not even exist, there is no video or photos of these purported drones near the airport: the textbook UFO!) which looks or acts like a drone can cause upheaval and chaos. And that there is little chance that the perpetrators will be caught.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
All indications are that the media worked out the identities some of them (not all, it has to be noted) and decided to run with it on the assumption they were guilty. Possibly that was via a tipoff from within the police force, possibly from the same neighbours who tipped of the police in the first place, or possibly even through actual investigation of their own. Regardless, and unlike in the US, it's certainly NOT the policy of the various police forces in the UK to release the personal details of suspects, or even those formerly charged with a crime for that matter. This is 100% on those elements of the media that decided to publish and be damned or, more accurately I hope, publish and be sued for libel.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
But this is the problem -- it's not the same thing:
1. The test is on a general aviation aircraft wing, a Mooney M20, not a commercial jet aircraft, which is much more rugged
2. The speed used was 238 mph, while the Mooney M20c has a do-not-exceed speed of 164 kt (190 mph), and takeoff and climbing is typically at something more like 88-105 KIAS. 238 mph would have to assume that the drone was headed into the plane at 48 mph when the plane was doing its top speed -- and it's unlikely the plane could do that speed at an altitude the drone could reach.
A more realistic test would be the wing of a 737 at its takeoff speed of 130 kt. Has that test ever been done?
The police did not release their names. Further the news outlets that published their names are now going to find themselves paying large amount of compensation to the couple because disclosing the names of people being questioned by the police *IS* illegal in England unless the police name them which they did not.
The drone actually hovered by the windows of the control tower, seriously, who would be stupid enough to do that and not expect police to follow the drone back to the users, manually. There is no way, any one could have expected to get that drone back or not get arrested trying. The whole thing a massive false flagging scam and no one can pretend otherwise. A real investigation needs to occur and those corporate douche bag types need an extended custodial sentence. I dare so more millions will be spent on anti-drone measures and new regulations created to restrict their use (not that I am opposed to that noisy invasive things but at least be honest about and do not put people's lives at risk with false flag bullshit).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
There is no way to make a wise $6 million purchase of ANYTHING in just a few days. It takes time to carry out due diligence. This airport management is clearly incompetent, unless the story should have said they BEGAN the process of spending the money.