Slashdot Mirror


London's Heathrow Airport Halts Departures Over Drone Sighting (cnbc.com)

London's Heathrow Airport halted departures on Tuesday after a report of a drone sighting, less than a month after a similar event crippled operations at a major U.K. airport. From a report: "We are currently responding to a drone sighting at Heathrow and are working closely with the Met Police to prevent any threat to operational safety," a spokesperson for the airport said. "As a precautionary measure, we have stopped departures while we investigate. We apologise to passengers for any inconvenience this may cause."

128 comments

  1. British guy sees drone, turns out to be a mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News at 11

  2. DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by MDMurphy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could a few dozen drones, a few at each of major airports, with some nice shiny radar reflectors, clog the air traffic system? They could pop out of parked cars spook everyone, to hide after a minute or two, or be replaced by the next one in the queue. Can it be that easy? I would hope not.

    1. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya gotta take into account human nature. Hardly anybody goes out of their way to take that much effort to cause problems. People who cause problems do not want to put any effort into it.

  3. Fake Drone? by nobleclem · · Score: 2

    Could it be another construction crane sighting?

    1. Re:Fake Drone? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What, didn't they fly south for the winter?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re: Fake Drone? by nobleclem · · Score: 1

      Maybe climate change made it confused and forgot to head south?

  4. Drone warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks Obama.

    1. Re:Drone warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Obama.

      Didn't he win some sort of peace prize?

    2. Re:Drone warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you just need enough drone strikes to get one of those.

  5. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't even need the drones, just reports of people seeing them.

    The previous incident the summary mentions? The police aren't sure there even was a drone, and so far there's been no proof that anyone was flying drones near the airport.

  6. Is that all that it takes? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If flying a drone is all that it takes to bring Heathrow down to its knees, the Brits are even in more trouble than we thought.

    1. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking they need to invest in the technology to quickly and safely shoot these out of the sky and resume operations. I'm also thinking most of them would cause less damage to a jet than a goose strike would.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      What if those drones are carrying knives?

    3. Re:Is that all that it takes? by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if the industry self regulated and build in some sort of disarm signal sensor so emergency workers can bring drones down. It wouldn't work for custom drones but would work for most cases

    4. Re:Is that all that it takes? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      If flying a drone is all that it takes to bring Heathrow down to its knees ...

      It doesn't even take that. There is no physical or photographic evidence that there was actually a drone. It was just a reported "sighting".

    5. Re:Is that all that it takes? by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm thinking they need to invest in the technology to quickly and safely shoot these out of the sky and resume operations. I'm also thinking most of them would cause less damage to a jet than a goose strike would.

      Some tests have been made with drone and aircraft collisions https://www.aerospacetestingin...
      “The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do,”

    6. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are special stealth drones.

      They can be seen with the naked eye, but cannot be recorded on photograph or video /s

      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html
      https://inews.co.uk/news/police-admit-drones-gatwick-airport-sightings/

    7. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A drone sucked into a jet engine is no small problem.

    8. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A drone sucked into a jet engine is no small problem.

      So is multiple 15 pound fleshy objects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I see a bunch of geese eating on the lawn of our airport right now, should we shut down the airport? I guess they are making the assumption that a drone flown near an airport is done with malice, whereas a goose probably doesn't have any malice toward a typical airliner. Still, is the risk really any different?

      Just my bent $0.02.

    9. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If flying a drone is all that it takes to bring Heathrow down to its knees, the Brits are even in more trouble than we thought.

      This isn't particularly a Brit thing, and damned near any airport would have to do the same thing.

      A collision, or getting sucked through an engine ... and people could die.

      There's a reason why airports are heavily monitored airspace, because lives are at stake.

    10. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      whereas a goose probably doesn't have any malice toward a typical airliner.

      Have you never heard of the Cobra Chicken? Geese have malice towards everything.

    11. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Sarten-X · · Score: 0

      Geese tend to fly away from the big noisy machine. Drone pilots (and I use that term loosely) tend to think "Oh, this'll be a great view!"

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Geese tend to fly away from the big noisy machine. Drone pilots (and I use that term loosely) tend to think "Oh, this'll be a great view!"

      While I think you are likely correct (never attribute toward malice what can be attributed toward sheer stupidity and the average goose may be smarter than the average drone operator), historical record does show more airline damage by birds than drones. True drones are a pretty new thing and will just get worse.

      "There have been about 194,000 wildlife strikes with civil aircraft in USA between 1990 and 2017 (about 14,400 strikes at 700 U.S. airports in 2017). An additional 4,000 strikes have been reported by U.S. Air Carriers at foreign airports, 1990-2017.
      From 1988 to 2017, there were 287 human fatalities attributed to wildlife strikes globally."

    13. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      whereas a goose probably doesn't have any malice toward a typical airliner.

      Have you never heard of the Cobra Chicken? Geese have malice towards everything.

      So I've been informed by Ron White and a coworker who decided it would be funny to charge the flock (sorry, just don't like gaggle) of geese that lives on the front lawn at work. You may outweigh a goose but a 20+ goose charge, all bearing their teeth, is something you try not to do twice.

    14. Re:Is that all that it takes? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      >>> Geese tend to fly away from the big noisy machine.

      Goose nervous and sensor systems weren't designed to detect and avoid 200 MPH airplanes. That's kinda like saying "Dogs/Cats/Squirrels/Deer tend to run away from big noisy cars". Perhaps "tend" is the correct word, but it's a long way from "always".

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    15. Re:Is that all that it takes? by buffcleb · · Score: 2

      that test was at 238mph while most take-off and approach speeds are around 150-180mph (based on google - I'm not a pilot)... wouldn't the test have made more sense at 180mph?

    16. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great is;and nation went from undaunted while under continual attack by exploding drones targeting populations to being brought to a virtual standstill at reports of a few ounces of flying plastic in relatively remote airspace...
      Times, they are a-changing...

    17. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even that much, all you need to do is make a call and say you saw a drone. If you thought swatting was fun, you've seen nothing yet.

    18. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking they need to invest in the technology to quickly and safely shoot these out of the sky and resume operations. I'm also thinking most of them would cause less damage to a jet than a goose strike would.

      Some tests have been made with drone and aircraft collisions https://www.aerospacetestingin...
      “The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do,”

      Not to take away from a test result that is truly concerning about the structural impact to the aircraft, they tested it against a Mooney M20. This aircraft isn't particularly large. I kind of wonder how the wing structure of a larger airline hold up against the same impact?

      I would think the greatest concern with an airliner would not be structural damage to the wing but risk of fire of deeper penetration from a metal object into the wing tanks.

    19. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      What if those drones are carrying knives?

      Then you hunt them down using a drone carrying a gun.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    20. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I guess they are making the assumption that a drone flown near an airport is done with malice, whereas a goose probably doesn't have any malice toward a typical airliner. Still, is the risk really any different?

      Just my bent $0.02.

      There's always a chance that a drone is being operated by a terrorist organization. It's much less likely that a goose is.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    21. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Just disrupt the RF signal? Most of these drones aren't autonomous. I think in most of these cases though that the drones go out of sight when authorities showed up to investigate.

    22. Re: Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They scare birds away.
      The problem is if the engine is damaged and loses thrust during take off and they're past the point where they have room to abandon, it's game over. It's the most dangerous part of a flight. That's why they still let the planes land.

    23. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source: your ass.
      Birds are different than drones.

    24. Re:Is that all that it takes? by the_povinator · · Score: 1

      Baring their teeth? That must have been very scary, considering that normal geese don't have teeth.

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    25. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Baring their teeth? That must have been very scary, considering that normal geese don't have teeth.

      You don't know just how evil geese are. They can grow teeth just to look more mean!

    26. Re:Is that all that it takes? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      I would be more interested to know if it's even possible to divert a drone into the path of an airplane flying at 180-238mph with such a precision that you can hit the engines.

    27. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot that because we learned from incidents, they have put up some sort of defense to chase away those flying animals near by the airport. That's a type of measure we try to prevent the similar incident (but it is still happening). For drone, you aren't dealing with animal but humans (which is much harder and more complex).

    28. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During landing is the last time I would want a large bird or drone flying into my jet's engine...at least in the air you have more than a couple seconds to recover before you hit the ground...

    29. Re:Is that all that it takes? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That test simply shot a projectile at a wing and has been widely discredited.

      Sure it's going to do damage but it's not at all close to realistic. You need a wind tunnel and then simply drop the drone and see whether it will ever hit a wing. If a flock of birds could do as much damage, then we'd never get any planes of the ground.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    30. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded? Of course, the risk is different. Human malice vs. random goose...

    31. Re:Is that all that it takes? by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 1

      That test simply shot a projectile at a wing and has been widely discredited.

      Sure it's going to do damage but it's not at all close to realistic. You need a wind tunnel and then simply drop the drone and see whether it will ever hit a wing. If a flock of birds could do as much damage, then we'd never get any planes of the ground.

      Feel free to add to the discussion by providing a link.

    32. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      If you were really trying to take out a planes engines you would use a swarm of drones that would launch at once to a predetermined altitude. Then let the plane fly into the cloud. One should hit an engine.

      Getting a single drone into a planes engine on purpose would be hellishly hard. I race drones and a standard race gate is 1.52m x 1.52m. People hit those stationary gates every race and get taken out. Trying to hit one moving at 180mph even on a known path would be down to pure fluke.

    33. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      All DJI drone will go into failsafe mode and either hold position or return to base. They could also have been setup to fly a predetermined path.

      Building an autonomous drone from cheap off the shelf parts is trivial.

    34. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baring their teeth? That must have been very scary, considering that normal geese don't have teeth.

      True that geese don't have 'true' teeth ... but they still have jagged, pointy little things along their bills which serve the same function as teeth which would give you one hell of a slash.

      I used to work in an office building where in the spring migratory geese might used the flower beds in the medians as nesting areas. Suddenly one morning you're walking into the office there is a large, angry goose freaking out and coming right for you.

      If you've never been chased by an angry goose who thinks you've invaded its territory, you have no idea how scary a goose can be.

      They may not have teeth, but the serrated things they have could leave a hell of a mark.

    35. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Are you retarded? Of course, the risk is different. Human malice vs. random goose...

      Good to know that all drones are flown in malice... though given they already shut down the airport for earlier drone flights... the drone pilot is either an complete moron or intentionally trying to shut down the airport. But then is the pilot actually willing to kill someone, or just trying to brag to his friends how he shut down an airport?

    36. Re:Is that all that it takes? by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Geese and other birds actually tend not to fly away from airplanes. Which is very odd because they are excellent fliers and it is not hard to spot a 100 ton noisy airliner coming at you.

      But as for drones, you are dealing with human mass hysteria about insignificant threats. The geese are far more sensible.

    37. Re: Is that all that it takes? by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Yes it's called augmented proportional navigation and it's been known for decades.

    38. Re:Is that all that it takes? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      the Brits are even in more trouble than we thought.

      Implying that flying a drone around Orly or LAX wouldn't have the same effect?

    39. Re:Is that all that it takes? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm also thinking most of them would cause less damage to a jet than a goose strike would.

      Based on what? Certainly not physics which includes things like mass and density.

    40. Re:Is that all that it takes? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A goose does less damage and they are harder to regulate.

    41. Re:Is that all that it takes? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I thought the same, but then I looked at the numbers. A Mooney M20 has a skin thickness of 0.025" at the tip increasing to 0.04" at the inner 50% of the wing*. The skin thickness of an A340 at the leading edge slats is 1mm (2mm for an A320)**. 0.04" is 1.0.16mm, so the thickness is about right (the video shows the impact where the thickness to chord ratio is fairly high, which suggests near the root).

      Leading edge curvature may also effect the results. A relatively thin wing will have a higher curvature which tends to be stronger than a thicker wing.

      Another factor is the damage caused to the systems. The damage caused to the M20 will cause airflow to separate early, so the area behind the impact is unlikely to generate much lift. That's obviously bad. For a commercial aircraft, you're also damaging the slats which are generating a significant amount of extra lift (assuming the impact is at low level), as well as reducing the lift along the wing. Of course, the larger the wing, the smaller the percentage of lift lost due to damage will be.

      * Mooney M20 Skin Thickness
      ** A320/A340 Skin Thickness

    42. Re:Is that all that it takes? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      And badgers. I need to get a few badger decals for the side of my car. My reputation obviously now precedes me - I had a badger have a go at me (hiss/growl/bark) when I cycled passed it.

    43. Re: Is that all that it takes? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      And that would work when the speed differences are so extreme between two moving objects? I can see that this is used for cruise missiles but they move quite fast as compared with the slow speed of a drone vs the airplane that it wants to hit.

    44. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If flying a drone is all that it takes to bring Heathrow down to its knees, the Brits are even in more trouble than we thought.

      How are all your Cuban diplomats doing? Have they recovered from the "advanced sonic weapon attacks" yet?

      Americans practically invented mass hysteria, it's a wonderfully useful tool for evangelicals and other cunts.

    45. Re:Is that all that it takes? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Which implies that shutting down an entire airport when a single drone is spotted is over reacting to state it mildly.

    46. Re:Is that all that it takes? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it is a massive over reaction. Personally I'd be more worried about red necks taking pot shots at aircraft.

  7. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You're new here, aren't you?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  8. Lessons learned from the Middle East by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The only way to remove drones is to cease life services for the drone operators.

    Call in the SAS.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Lessons learned from the Middle East by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this sounds a bit tin-foily, but since they still have no idea who was using the drones at Gatwick - highly publicized shitshow of arresting the wrong people aside - and now it's happened at Heathrow, I'm wondering if this isn't some foreign power testing to seeif some mid-range autonomous drones are capable of bringing air travel for much of a country to a halt for a few thousand dollars worth of equipment.

      If so, the SAS is probably going to have a very hard time finding the people involved as they won't be alcopop drinking yobs with a line of sight drone from a big box store, but rather probably operating drones that are 100% autonomous and following a GPS defined course from a hidden launch point miles away.

    2. Re:Lessons learned from the Middle East by Megane · · Score: 1

      but since they still have no idea who was using the drones at Gatwick

      We still have no idea what kind of drones they were, or even if they were drones at all, and nothing more than hysterical UFO reports.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can it be that easy? I would hope not.

    It is even easier than that. You don't even need your parked car. All you need is to convince someone at Heathrow that there is a drone in the area and they will voluntarily suspend all departures. This is actually happening right now. It also happened last month at Gatwick.

  10. UFO by ebonum · · Score: 1

    I saw an Arquillian Battle Cruiser near JFK!

    Shut it down!

    1. Re: UFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy I wanna be a volunteer drone spotter! I would even make my own uniforms!

    2. Re:UFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JFK was permanently shut down on 22 Nov. 1963.

  11. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    I'm looking at this as proof-of-concept. Next step are the protection payments. I mean ongoing invoices to be paid in bitcoin for keeping the place drone-free.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  12. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh aye, where can I get a good stiff drink?

  13. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You don't even need the drones, just reports of people seeing them."

    Great point.

    "Done sightings" will be 2019's version of a fake bomb threat.

  14. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fake drone threat? You talking seriously?

  15. new slogan for those stupid t-shirts by orgelspieler · · Score: 1, Informative

    Keep Calm and Ca... Holy shit! Is that a flying piece of plastic?? Shut everything down now!!!!1!!!

    1. Re:new slogan for those stupid t-shirts by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah a piece of plastic with a few very heavy iron cores that travel at high speed and do wonders when they impact planes.

      "Wow is that a bullet coming towards me! Stop!"

  16. This is just stage 1: by sheramil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stage 2 involves deploying drones that somewhat resemble pigeons.

    Stage 3 is where the relevant authorities discover they can't tell the drones from the pigeons, and all air traffic is halted, permanently. The pigeons win.

  17. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't even need the drones. Just claim you saw one. You can even phone it in anonymously.

  18. news from inside the shoe event horizon by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    The actual problem is that Heathrow is having problems with its supplier of lemon-soaked paper napkins.

    They just don't want to unnecessarily alarm people with talk about the incipient collapse of civilization.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  19. Asymmetric warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rubes have been badgered into buying anti-drone technology. Making the enemy spend great resources on pointless efforts is a classic asymmetric warfare technique.

  20. How long until Russia blamed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are really pushing this hard, aren't they?
    Soon Drones will be arrestable.
    The UK air service is higher risk than fucking Bitcoin. No need to see something move, the mere accusation alone is enough to bring it to its knees.
    How embarrassing. My friend is already considering leaving his job over this nonsense and he only started it last week! (NATS)
    If that is all it takes, I'll hardly be surprised if malicious groups DO start taking the piss and filing reports all over the place. "No really, I saw flying ponies, omg close it down!"

    1. Re:How long until Russia blamed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember this, you are the one who started talking Russia. You.

  21. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hardly anyone" > 1 person, which is all it would take to cause major problems. OK, maybe one person would need help to shut down air traffic nationwide, but even doing this at a critical hub like O'Hare or Hartsfield would have knock on effects all over the country even if all air traffic wouldn't be halted.

    The only thing that would prevent them, other than your hope about laziness, is that there would be a huge law enforcement effort put into capturing them, and one mistake that would let them get caught would mean life in prison assuming the judge went along with consecutive sentences for multiple offenses to set an example.

  22. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    drone == bomb.

    Why do you think this is taken so seriously as to shut down an airport?

  23. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One day we may actually get a photograph of one of these airport drones.

  24. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    of course! the enforcers for the 1% are dead set on making a big deal of anything drone related

  25. Idiots by aglider · · Score: 0

    Why not just shooting at that flying junk?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Idiots by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      Why not come to the UK aglider? We could do with your magic expertise of hitting a drone first shot in such a way that no debris gets left behind on runways/taxi-ways to be sucked up into engines.

      Of course, with your shooting being so accurate we needn't worry about missed shots carrying a rifle bullet onto the two major motorways around the airport (the busiest roads in Europe according to some sources) or into a terminal full of people, or into hotels ....

      Or maybe, just maybe, the UK authorities consider potential consequences beyond the trigger happy, knee jerk reaction and apply some thought to the situation.

    2. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubber bullets are damaging to small drones at speed but harmless to people and cars when falling down at terminal velocity.
      Not to say gp isn't a douche.

    3. Re: Idiots by aglider · · Score: 0

      You know a lot about the airports, don't you?
      You know a lot about the space between the users area and the lanes. Don't you?
      You know a whole lot about early intrusion detection (not IT) systems at airports, don't you?

      Good for you.
      I am here, though.

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    4. Re: Idiots by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      As it happens, I do know Heathrow very well. I live nearby and have used it many times. It's in an area of relatively high population density (apart from the reservoirs and lakes a few miles to the west).

      The airport is bounded on two sides by major motorways with another major road to the east and it has terminal buildings in the middle. Aircraft are parked between the runways and along the side of the airport.

      It would be difficult to draw a shot line that didn't run any danger of collateral damage.

      Even a lower powered cartridge (which would mean dashing around on the ground to get closer to the drone, with all of the implications on safe movement airside of aircraft and vehicles) would pose a problem with debris.

      If we took it to extremes and assumed that your shot was practically out of energy at the airport fence, a slow moving bullet hitting a car going at 70mph would still cause damage and may shock/distract a driver into swerving into other lanes [people in the UK not being accustomed to gun violence].

    5. Re: Idiots by marcel_in_ca · · Score: 1

      You may know Heathrow, but you don't know a thing about firearms, and not much about aircraft operations. Firearms: Why use a rifle/pistol? A shotgun has a maximum range of about 300 yards. It was *designed* to hit flying targets. In terms of the risks of collateral damage, how about looking at the number of casualties on the ground from the Battle of Britain? Ya know, the one where there was massive air combat over a large urban area (London). Aircraft: so, you have to clean up the debris. You have to do that on a regular basis, due to ground accidents (you didn't think that there would be no collisions between all those trucks that run around the field, did you?), animals (it's a *grassy field*), and wind blown debris. What you're looking for is a zero-risk, zero side effect solution. 'Taint no such thing.

  26. Re:British guy sees drone, turns out to be a mirro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... that was your face.

  27. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course! the enforcers for the 1% are dead set on making a big deal of anything drone related

    Lets blame 1% 'ers for EVERYTHING!

  28. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    You don't even need the drones. Just claim you saw one. You can even phone it in anonymously.

    So, instead of bomb threats we're going to start having Drone-threats?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  29. Every pidgeon halts flights by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the drone age.

  30. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    1) They have military anti-drone devices deployed at UK airports. A persistent threat will be disabled.

    2) Other parts of their government are monitoring radio broadcasts. If you make yourself into a persistent threat to air travel, they will track your transmissions.

    So, yeah, you could disrupt things for an afternoon, but you'd spend decades in prison as a terrorist.

  31. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, we're just blaming them for 99% of EVERYTHING.

    Idiot.

  32. If you see something, say something. by WimBo · · Score: 1

    In the gatwick incident, the police admitted that there may not have been a drone originally, then the police flew their own drones which may have been reported as further drone sightings.

    The technology cat is out of the bag. Anyone with a little smart and a little money can build a drone that ignores the rules.

    1. Re:If you see something, say something. by oobayly · · Score: 1

      No, the police admitted that some of the drones may have been police drones. That's very different from "the police admitted that there may not have been a drone originally". It's just the way the headlines were written. Take the Torygraph, for example, and then compare the 1st paragraph of the actual article.

      Source: Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits

      Some of the drone sightings which kept Gatwick Airport on lockdown for 36 hours may have been reports of Sussex Police's own aircraft

      Like you say however, it'd be very easy to build a drone that uses a single nitro engine and collective pitch, controlled via a 3g card with programmed "random" 3d flying for maximum unpredictability and disruption, and is capable of returning to a predefined landing zone (extra points if it randomly selects which zone and notifies the operator).

  33. Pictures! Or It's A False Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting for pictures from the Gatwick incident.

    I think these drone sightings are either a false flag operation or a hoax, as in bomb threat.

    Meanwhile, only hours ago I saw a spandex clad bicycle rider(not riding) flying a drone within two miles of one and 4 miles of another airport. Yes, it wasn't a real danger. But, it was illegal as fucking hell!

    The spandex though... I wanted to vomit.

  34. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by saider · · Score: 1

    If they catch you.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  35. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by MDMurphy · · Score: 1

    A drone does not necessarily require a radio to be guided. It can steer itself via GPS+IMU, no need for the operator to communicate. So finding it, or it's operator, via any transmitted signals, isn't the most reliable method of deterrence. If your object is mischief, it's best not to be standing outside underneath it with a box and a big antenna looking up.

  36. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A protection racket requires that you can indeed "protect" the mark - from other people running the same thing. How would you do that in this case?

  37. Geography ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Heathrow Airpoirt in the U.K.?

    1. Re: Geography ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should I give this guy a WHOOSH, or have that grounded as well?

  38. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    I have several wings that are fully autonomous, they navigate a pre-determined flight path, take actions at certain gps co-ords and then fly back to me. The total radio connection time is arming the flight controller at launch and then radio control to land. Even then I could let them land auto if I wanted but that would probably break them.

    The only way to shut them down is to shoot them down or spoof local GPS enough to put them into the ground / solid object.

  39. Drone hysteria more risk than drones by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 1

    The drone hysteria, and not drones, has armed mischief makers. It now looks like the Gatwick incident didn't actually involve any drones at all. There isn't much evidence that there was any wrong-doing at all in the Gatwick incident. I wonder if there will be at Heathrow.

    I have a DJI Mavic Air for photography and a couple of self-built racing/acro drones for fun. The Air's electronics make it a cinch to fly, but it won't allow it to anywhere near an airport. Even if it could, it's so docile that it would be hard to hit moving aircraft. Steering into an engine of a moving passenger jet would be quite a challenge. Even a stationary plane's engine would be difficult to hit because the Air has sensors that won't let it crash into anything unless you ascend into it from below or fly into it side-ways, in which case you can't see where you are headed.

    My racing/acro drones would be better for causing mischief, but not much. They do as I tell them, and are both tough and nimble, but it was a major effort to develop the skill to fly without fear of accidentally crashing. I've spent a lot of time practising on a simulator and flying through hula-hoop sized gates in wide open spaces, but still have trouble finishing a lap around a 10-gate track without crashing, even when that is my sole aim (ie. I take as much time as I like). I'd have a very hard time hitting a moving passenger plane at all, let alone in a way that could cause damage. The skill required makes these sorts of drones horrible tools to damage passenger planes.

    Luckily for mischief makers, they don't have to be. All the hysteria means that one can shut down an airport with an 80-gram toy that is nearly incapable of causing damage to a plane, even in very skilled hands. Heck, who needs a drone. Just show up near an airport with a mock transmitter and goggles. Someone will call it in.

    1. Re:Drone hysteria more risk than drones by keithdowsett · · Score: 1

      The chances of a drone getting into a jet engine are extremely low, but they will make a serious mess if it happens.

      When a small bird like a pigeon strikes a modern turbofan engine the main fan converts it to coarse pate and hurls most of it through the bypass channel. Any small amounts that do pass through the core of the engine are unlikely to damage the turbine wheels. Ingesting a larger bird like a goose usually causes main rotor failure which will destroy the engine immediately.

      The important difference with a drone is the motors. They are dense and extremely hard (compared to a pigeon), so when they impact the main fan they will cause significant damage. This could range from a vibration shutdown to a 'blade out' failure. In addition any metal fragments which enter the core are likely to cause a turbine wheel failure in which case the engine is usually scrap.

      Training does cover the possibility of engine out during takeoff because bird strikes happen at the worst possible time (low speed, low altitude). But it's not something you want to do unnecessarily, and writing off multi-million dollar engines ( $25M for an A380 engine) is not good for business..

      So I can understand the paranoia, but not the massive over reaction.

  40. Re: British guy sees drone, turns out to be a mirr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These will be known as the Drone Wars.

  41. New boogeyman by caseih · · Score: 1

    And they don't even have to be real, flying, drones either. Forget about terrorism. Drones are where it's at.

    Nothing I've seen so far has led me to believe there ever was any drone at Gatwick, nor have I seen any proof of a drone in this instance either. Can't prove a negative of course--there could maybe have have been an idiot flying nearby. It's a tough call to make. What I wouldn't stand for is police acting the way they did in the Gatwick case. What a disaster. I hope that couple gets some good compensation for the damage done.

    Expect widespread government overreaction to this phantom (no pun intended) drone.

  42. A Mooney is NOT an airliner by aberglas · · Score: 1

    It is a very light and fast aircraft. Not a 100 ton airliner. You could dent a moneys wing with your fist (it would hurt). The leading edge of an airliner is much, much thicker. It is like comparing a rowing boat to an ocean liner.

    And that drone in the experiment was not a 500g consumer drone but something weighing over 1kg. Shot out of a cannon. And it still failed to destroy the wing -- the pilot would probably have limped home.

    In all of this, NOBODY had questioned the size of the drones spotted. Sure, a well aimed 500kg military drone could do some real damage, but not the 500g drones that people are talking about.

    It is bizzare. Just look at a tiny consumer drone, and an airliner, and it is completely obvious that no serious damage could done.

    And even if a drone managed to knock out an engine (extremely unlikely), the plane will fly quite happily on one.

    1. Re:A Mooney is NOT an airliner by oobayly · · Score: 1

      See my post above. An A340's slats are about the same skin thickness as a Mooney M20 wing.

    2. Re:A Mooney is NOT an airliner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, even if true, dinging the slats is not going to destroy the integrity of a wing. It is the main spar we are concerned about.

  43. Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by aberglas · · Score: 1

    The likelihood of a 500g consumer drone destroying a 100 ton airliner is as close zero as makes no difference. Just look at an airliner. It is big, and solid. And it has two engines, and even losing both of them is unlikely to result in a fatal crash.

    NOBODY in the media has picked up on this. Actually thought for a minute about how ridiculous the assertion is.

    Sure, a 500kg military drone might do some damage if well aimed. But nobody is talking about one of those. There was an experiment in which somebody fired a fairly large drone out of a cannon at a very light aircraft wing and did major damage (but still did not destroy it), hardly relevant.

    Where is the risk assessment? There is about 0.6 fatal accidents for every million airline flights. So a 1 in 100 million additional risk is something to be avoided, but you do not close an airport because of it.

    1. Re: Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by Einzelhaft · · Score: 1

      Take coil of stainless control cable and attach to drone. Strap on small steel pipe too.. Fly into turbofan intake. Bad outcome.

    2. Re:Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously arguing for airliners-ploughing-through-drones as a matter of course and to be expected? Or did you forget that drone operators MAY intentionally want to crash their drones into planes? One engine taken out at a critical juncture during landing - precisely at the altitudes drones operate at - may disrupt an approach and cause a crash (probably non-fatal but no guarantees!).

      Even if an airplane shrugs off a drone strike, it doesn't mean it won't then immediately be grounded and likely go through very expensive repairs. Do this enough times, and ticket prices go up for everyone.

      Risk assessment arguments in a vacuum don't help.

    3. Re: Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by sjames · · Score: 1

      A 500g drone with a steel pipe and steel cable attached? Good luck getting it to fly at all.

      Presuming you step up to a big enough drone to get your chosen payload off of the ground, the force will definitely have to be with you to fly it into a jetliner's engine.

      Assuming you really are a Jedi, the result will be an expensive ruined engine and the plane making an emergency landing on it's remaining engine.

    4. Re: Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by Megane · · Score: 1

      So we have no evidence that there was even an actual drone at Gatwick or Heathrow at all, and now you're suggesting that someone might make an intentionally malicious drone?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re: Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      If anyone does it *once*, then we can start worrying about what happens if it's done enough times.

    6. Re: Zero Risk assessment about a 500g drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      skip the pipe, same outcome

  44. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Why use GPS? Dead reckoning will get you close enough.

  45. Battle of Britain film by aberglas · · Score: 1

    I made the kids watch this recently. Must have been a different country named Britain that the one we know today.

    (Most Australian kids are taught zero 20th century history at school. Zero. Due to a National Curriculum.)

  46. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    Because it's cheap, allows more complex flight paths and the ability to accurately position hold.

    Once you are in the air it is very difficult to measure how far you have traveled without GPS. Dead reckoning is fine if you want to just fly-by, but to know you are at a particular location you need gps.

  47. I regret getting a ticket with a stop in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the drone that irritates me, but the retarded response to a drone. I get that there is a risk, but it's not significant enough to warrant shutting down an airport for any serious length of time. It's not worth being delayed let along being unable to complete a leg of my journey because some dumb ass is flying a drone near an airport. It's one thing if a clear and immediate danger of significance exists to a lot of people- like say 9/11 or the trade center bombing- but a fucking drone? Give me a break. Even if everybody died it's what? 300 lives? Which isn't even likely anyway. Most likely damage to the plane would exist, but significant number of deaths in the unlikely event of a drone strike with a plane won't even likely have a significant number of deaths let alone 300 or 3000.

    1. Re:I regret getting a ticket with a stop in the UK by keithdowsett · · Score: 1

      It could be worse - you could be flying through Canada and get detained because the US president wants a pi55ing contest with China.

  48. Re: DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't even need the drones. Just claim you saw one. You can even phone it in anonymously.

    So, instead of bomb threats we're going to start having Drone-threats?

    Waiting for the first school getting an anonymous call about a drone in order to get a test cancelled.

  49. "drone sighting" does not equal "drone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's all this bollocks is based on - 'SIGHTINGS' - i.e. somebody phoning the police and SAYING they saw a drone, when there was no drone in the first place. Absolutely ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous - this is all so that the government can ban drones. With a drone you can film fox hunters continuously while they hunt a fox, although it's illegal. You can film the government doing things they don't want you to see, and so on. They don't want the power of the media to be in the hands of the man in the street, they want it to stay in the hands of the JEW who runs the country you live in. The Eternal Jew.

  50. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if somebody with advanced technical skills is doing it, it might actually make them easier to catch.

    It is a really stupid type of thing to do, it is on the level of a prank, but a prank that can send you to prison as a terrorist. Any smart person who is insane enough to do that already is on the list of people who make online threats. They probably got onto the list with stupid jokes that they didn't realize would be taken as threats!

    And did they do it without having to do an internet search on it first? Only if they're an engineer. If an engineer decides to become a terrorist and this is what they went for, they'll probably be pretty easy to round up. And also, "Oh, good, they didn't hurt anybody."

  51. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    The total radio connection time is arming the flight controller at launch and then radio control to land.

    OK, but you've already done this in public. The military monitors radio traffic. Operational information about your control system is already stored in databases, but it isn't parsed out or cross-referenced or anything. Yet.

    If you turn into a terrorist trying to disrupt air traffic, you'll be even easier to catch that the guy using an off-the-shelf system.

    Being more clever doesn't actually help the terrorist in this case; it simply shows a lot more planning and increases the prison sentence they'll get. It also helps them to stand out from all the morons who are obviously not clever enough to have done it.

  52. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    GPS is receive-only, you don't transmit anything, so that much is reasonable.

    Dead reckoning takes a long time to program, and has to be tuned for each device. GPS you only have to do standard GIS transformations, and the rest of the hardware is irrelevant.

    Dead reckoning you give up the first time you try to operate it outdoors in a slight wind.

  53. Re:DDOS: Drone Denial of Service by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    All of this stuff is off the shelf components. It is the absolute standard stuff that anybody that plays with RC gear uses.

    All the flight control and way point planning is done via iNav - https://github.com/iNavFlight/...
    Flight controllers are ~$20-$50 off ebay
    The radio receivers are generic, $20 items.
    GPS module is $20

    It is all done in the 2.4g band. There isn't anything to detect, parse or cross reference. It's all consumable crap made for peanuts in china. There is nothing special about anything I'm using. The radio I use is an FrSky taranis which has millions of sold units and is the number 1 most popular radio in the hobby.