Richard Swindells Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Trying to work out what is more worrying. The events of the last 24 hours, or the fact that there does not seem to be a single comment about it from any barcs member.. Or did I miss the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_t Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Was feeling likewise, but there is a lot of chatter on BMFA FB group, (and also apparently some admin deletions/blocking). There is even quite a few jokes on there, which just goes to show how little some flyers understand the potential impacts to our hobby - which likely will have impacts well outside the UK - I’m sure the US will be watching with interest. And no doubt many of the bad guys will be encouraged by the services inability to deal with the threat. It may not be terrorists, perhaps just some of the thugs who got busted using drones to re-supply prisoners with phones and drugs, and are getting there own back. Sad world Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett82 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 The thing that gets me is they will impose more restrictions on us but that's not going to stop people like this from doing it. This was a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, they don't care what laws there are. How do the people that make the laws not understand this. The news had a bloke with the tech to stop drones flying in an area but airports are not allowed to use it. That will work and stop this happening, not stricter laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentPilot Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 I can't understand why they weren't shot down using the bird scarer shotguns. There's world champion clay pigeon shooters coaching our guys here, I'm sure they could hit a drone! Bad guys are just gonna lap this up. They don't even need to make a bomb any more. Just get a bloody drone and terrorise an airport. This should never have made the news. Just shoot it down and drive out with a bin bag... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satinet Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Brett82 said: The thing that gets me is they will impose more restrictions on us but that's not going to stop people like this from doing it. This was a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, they don't care what laws there are. How do the people that make the laws not understand this. The news had a bloke with the tech to stop drones flying in an area but airports are not allowed to use it. That will work and stop this happening, not stricter laws. They do but they want to be seen to do something. Effective solutions cost money. E.g police patrol cars vs gatso cameras (uk accident rate has leveled off since focus on speeding via cameras). The implications are potentially enormous. I can't help feeling Pete might have been right all along that the bmfa should have heavily distanced itself from fpv at an early stage. Hindsight.... I don't know enough about the technical aspect of anti drone technology. Clearly flooding the 2.4ghz bandwidth could have unforseen effects. I don't know if it's targeted. I'm not sure fire arms in and around built up areas will be effective. Shot guns, with bird shot at least, are quite short range. I suspect strong restrictions on fpv types being bought might be on the way. Hopefully not for real models like gliders. Certainly registration will come quickly now. Not that it would stop this but per my first paragraph.... The drone menace has become tangible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jef Ott Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Ask a class full of 12yr-olds how to get an unwanted drone down, and you'll get at least a dozen usable ideas. I must be missing a massive point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Peberdy Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I think Peter is right in my a pinyon the BMFA has got into bed with the drone people because numbers have gone down when Buckminster first put out there plans one of the first things was a car track it's a flying club for god's sake fixed wing cannot believe that now on classified BFMA top of page drone insurance it's time they looked after fixed wing members the LMFA model flying association do not entertain drones and nore should we and while I am having a rant the hall at Buckminster has no fire retardant paint on steal structure and I believe that a building have that span and open to the public needs have retardant paint on? Could say more but . Harry peberdy BMFA 044287 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloper Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 issues raised in this incident is that authorities don't know how to react to the threat. The aftermath of all this will be pressure from the aviation industry with the commercial loss and disruption. Safety regulations already exist around airports and public places, which like any other laws can be broken with intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oipigface Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 2 hours ago, pete beadle said: Where is the drone industry's PR spokesman in all of this? I On the Today programme ( BBC Radio 4) yesterday morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyB Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I'm a Radio Ham and the reason we have a slice of every band is because they needed (past tense) us. In the event of war / national emergency there would be 1000's of trained people who could relay messages / set up stations / service equipment ….. Yep – we were needed. The RSGB being the governing body...... RAYNET for emergencies. (Radio Amateurs Emergency Network) In the same way the BMFA should be right at the front of the fight, with trained teams …... Not A or B license but The Drone Flying Emergency Network License (DreFENeL), capable of performing the exact task they are asked to do, like follow a drone or knock one out of the sky. From Zero to Hero. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitmore Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0001m6z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oipigface Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 2 hours ago, pete beadle said: Hi OPF My Q - Quote - "Where is the drone industry's PR spokesman in all of this?" - reply "On the Today programme ( BBC Radio 4) yesterday morning" unquote.........not a BARCS forum member then? Go on, watdiddysay! Is there any way of hearing that again? Do they have anything like the IPlayer? - I think I'd find that really interesting........did he explain why he hadn't spoken until now? or whether he had he been contacted by any of the authorities to see if he could help them out?......maybe just to comment? Regards Pete BARCS1702 The short version of what he said is ‘Exactly what you would expect, given the shortage of any detail about who, why or even what.” ‘Malicious intent’ was mentioned several times, and the relevant law was rehearsed. The other speaker (apart from the journalist moderating the discussion) was from the airport. Seems to me that shortly after 8 on the morning after the activity started is pretty snappy. I also think that your call for a government enquiry is quicker than snappy, premature even. We don’t even know yet whether the incident is over. I am told that you can access the programme using BBC iPlayer. The radio part is now called BBC Sounds. I’ve never accessed this myself, so I’m in no position to offer further help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skip Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 What about that release is fact free? Do you know of some facts that were omitted? It reflects the exact state of play with regards to the level of trust there was, and shows that it has been broken and eroded by the person or people using drones illegally and against the current and future regulations. It highlights that the CAA/Police til now have not taken seriously the threat to commercial airspace and will now accelerate their countermeasures (which we can assume will no longer be gentle) of drones (UAV's) in restricted airspace. The police need to try their best to find the person/people involved and throw the entire book at them. (I'd start looking at disgruntled ex-employees and go from there). If I find any footage from the drones on the internet, I'll be forwarding it to the police, and sharing it on social media in an attempt to get the perpetrator/s apprehended. On the suggestion of a government enquiry, haven't we learned in the last 2 and a bit years that any government input is useless? Why on earth would you want them to step in to Drone regulation or even an investigation???. Surely industry led is far better than some pocket lining, dipstick politician? How many people who made decisions regarding flammable cladding on highrise accommodation have been held responsible, accountable, culpable by the government enquiry? 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skip Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 How many? Industry led (as in led by those involved in the RC drone/UAV industry) , not led by the mythical boogy-man industry that controls governments and assassinates their opposition, industry. There are very, very different levels of policing effort. This needs to be treated as a terrorist incident, at least for the practice..... There are also different books and different interpretations. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't already trying their best. I'm sure each individual involved is trying their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Swindells Posted December 21, 2018 Author Share Posted December 21, 2018 i actually took half a day off work to go to one of the consultation workshops that was being run by the company contracted by the governemt to impliment drone registration/legislation. It was actually a very constructive meeting, with reprisentitives from military suppliers, large-scale commercial operators and hobbists. I felt that all the points that I wanted to raise were listened to and taken into consideration. It felt to me like no-one from the traditional RC hobby had spoken to them up to that point, or if they had, they had not put their point across effectively. Essentially I was trying to convey the message that a lot of the assumtions being made in their legislation simply is not applicable to how we operate. The best analogy was that it was like trying to apply the same laws and regulation around commercial heavy goods vehicles, to a bicycle. I dont know if anyone else from our side of the hobby went? Regardless, I would not be suprised that after gatwick, there will be moves to apply a blanket ban on all RC aircraft sales, while they figure out what to do. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 On 21/12/2018 at 11:09, Sloper said: issues raised in this incident is that authorities don't know how to react to the threat. They seem to have reacted by mobilising a counter-UAV system that the Army bought earlier in the year and employing some old fashioned police work. Doubtless Gatwick and the other large airports in the UK will be installing UAV detection and tracking systems next year. There was a trial of a system at Southend last summer and big exercise at Manchester a few weeks ago (Operation Zenith). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 11 hours ago, Richard Swindells said: It felt to me like no-one from the traditional RC hobby had spoken to them up to that point, or if they had, they had not put their point across effectively. That was the impression that I got when I did the questionnaire that they put out. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 18 hours ago, pete beadle said: Almost as fact free as a BMFA press release It is factual. It's not actually saying very much, but that is different matter. An example of an "almost fact free" statement would be the one made by the shadow transport minister. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Elam Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 There's an interesting thread on Facebook started by Andy Ellison. The employer (John Allard) of the suspect who has been arrested has been posting saying that it cannot have been him as he was working on a site, miles away from Gatwick, with two more of his employees. Also worrying is the fact that John Allard, as of one hour ago, still hasn't even been contacted by the police. He's convinced he is innocent. Having said all that it has to be said that there appears to have been on further reports of drone activity over Gatwick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 Quote Sussex Police said the pair were no longer suspects. Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley said: "Both people have fully co-operated with our enquiries and I am satisfied that they are no longer suspects in the drone incidents at Gatwick. "Our inquiry continues at a pace to locate those responsible for the drone incursions, and we continue to actively follow lines of investigation." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615 Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now