Vocal Voices

I was watching the news in the early hours of the morning as the Gatwick emergency unfolded.

A drone user was explaining how such a thing could be done very cheaply with a couple of off-the-shelf drones for a few hundred pounds. They can be set off from one place but the 'pilot' does not have to remain static, they can move about making them very hard to apprehend. A more sophisticated drone can be pre-programmed to fly a route and off it goes.

The current emergency is not thought to be terror related, but it does not have to be. Any old malcontent, or groups of, could bring a few airports to a standstill with a bit of concerted effort and for not much money, but at phenomenal cost to the wider community and economy.

The only surprise about all this is that it has not happened before.

I wonder why they didn't just shoot the damned thing down? Surely it's possible!

Kaz wrote:I wonder why they didn't just shoot the damned thing down? Surely it's possible!

I worked with a guy who went on an anti aircraft gunnery course with the machine guns current at the time (1980's). He spent 2 weeks there. Said he had a wonderful time but never hit a single model aircraft.

The other problem is overshoot for a rifle. As much as 2-3 miles. Miss and you have no idea what you might hit.

Of course there is an option to just hit it with an anti missile weapon, they can hit a cricket ball going at 80mph. However a drone gives a radar signature closer to a golf ball and a fully fledged military missile going off at an airport with up to 6 or more aircraft preparing to land is not something the authorities really want. It is not public knowledge but these missiles don't always hit and when they do miss they tend to try and reacquire. Airliners are a much better choice for them. Of course there is self destruct but then you have the issue of falling debris.

In a war, yes all options are on the table. I'm guessing that the authorities are going to need some kind of attack or capture drones to deal with this but the problem has never really been big enough. I'm sure it just landed on a desk somewhere as a problem.

You'd have to be a good shot Kaz. It's a small moving target very high up.
Best way might be to get close with a helicopter and then have a go with a shotgun..

cromwell wrote:You'd have to be a good shot Kaz. It's a small moving target very high up.
Best way might be to get close with a helicopter and then have a go with a shotgun..

Are you offering, Crommers?

I would have thought that there must be some sort of electronic countermeasure available to put around airports that would jam the frequency these drones fly on .....

I'll just get the helicopter warmed up Os!

TheOstrich wrote:I would have thought that there must be some sort of electronic countermeasure available to put around airports that would jam the frequency these drones fly on .....

And every mobile phone and wireless network in the area. Surprisingly unpopular move that....

A trip to a search engine shows lots of 'potential' solutions......

Governments, large tech companies and lots of garden shed Heath Robinson inventors have all looked at this problem and all with limited success.

It is not as simple as many of us think, and certainly not when one of these things is hovering over pans and hardstandings with £bn of aircraft and thousands of kilos of aviation fuel about.

One of the best is being trialled by the Dutch using the natural instincts of birds of prey to catch drones as they would a flying dinner.

Unfortunately this is a case of new technology outstripping our ability to deal with its misuse.

I think these things should be banned.

If they can result in such disruption then I would agree with you Aggers.