Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Drone strike.... It was bound to happen!

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,144 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Locker10a wrote: »
    Drone strike on BA flight from GVA-LHR

    http://news.sky.com/story/1680304/drone-strikes-plane-at-heathrow-airport

    Just seen that!

    Not a major incident thank god, hopefully some regulations will be put in place before something serious does happen.


  • Options
    #3
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,690 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Just seen that!

    Not a major incident thank god, hopefully some regulations will be put in place before something serious does happen.

    Very difficult for regulations to be effective.


  • Options
    #4
    Firefox11
    Registered Users Posts: 1,515 ✭✭✭Firefox11


    Do drones have to be registered with the relevant aviation authorities in the UK as they have to be here now? (Over a certain weight)


  • Options
    #5
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,750 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Just seen that!

    Not a major incident thank god, hopefully some regulations will be put in place before something serious does happen.

    Hopefully an incident. Could easily see how these could be adapted for more nefarious purposes.


  • Options
    #6
    arubex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭arubex


    The problem with 'more regulations' is that people with the intent to do nefarious things will generally ignore the regulations, whilst those who just want to get on with their hobby are penalised.

    The weather doesn't care much for regulations, so commercial air transport had to find ways to adapt. Similiarly they'll have to adapt to widespread use of drones, not just build virtual castles around airports and add more laws to the books to 'protect' themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,144 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    arubex wrote: »
    The weather doesn't care much for regulations, so commercial air transport had to find ways to adapt. Similiarly they'll have to adapt to widespread use of drones, not just build virtual castles around airports and add more laws to the books to 'protect' themselves.

    Ehh, I don't really like this example. The weather can't be manoeuvred purposely in a malicious way.


  • Options
    #8
    fr336
    Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭fr336


    Anything in the name of profit eh....fingers crossed ISIS and co forget about the existance of drones but I think it unlikely somehow. Such things shouldn't be in the hands of the great unwashed, there should be strict criteria for purchase.


  • Options
    #9
    artanevilla
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


    One of these days one will go into an intake and cause thousands worth of damage. Who pays then?


  • Options
    #10
    Shannon757
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭Shannon757


    Must have been fairly minor for the aircraft to return to service 2 hours later. I wonder why they were flying it near Heathrow?
    Avherald report: http://avherald.com/h?article=4970605b&opt=0


  • Options
    #11
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,144 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Shannon757 wrote: »
    Must have been fairly minor for the aircraft to return to service 2 hours later. I wonder why they were flying it near Heathrow?
    Avherald report: http://avherald.com/h?article=4970605b&opt=0

    The aircraft was on final approach so it would have been fairly near Heathrow!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    The problem for the industry to grapple with is that for years, the approach paths to major airports have been fixed in stone in terms of the heights and locations that the aircraft operate at, and with the latest levels of computers that are now controlling the flight profile, the repeatability is scarily accurate, to within a matter of a few feet both horizontally and vertically. What's now causing much concern is that drones are effectively expendable price items, there are some on sale locally for under €60. and the technology to make it very easy to navigate them to a fixed point in space with the same accuracy as a commercial aircraft is also available for very cheap prices. It's then also incredibly easy to add FPV, (First person Video), so that the operator on the ground (sometimes a LONG way away from the actual device) can see a picture relayed from the device to the ground and move the device in order to achieve the result they want.

    One solution is in some respect possibly counter intuitive, which is to degrade the accuracy of the profile that the automation flies the aircraft. Yes, they are supposed to cross the Final approach fix at altitude X, but if that altitude varies by plus or minus 100 Fr, it does not compromise the ability of the system to fly a stable approach, but it will for sure mess up the ability of the drone pilot to put his device in the expected path of an airliner.

    In the same vein, ATC systems have for years been pulling aircraft down to 1500 Ft AGL for miles before the final approach fix, and dragging them in at that level for miles, which makes them a much easier target, as they are also then flying a very predictable horizontal profile,

    A long time ago, Airways were 10 miles wide to make sure that an aircraft didn't stray out of controlled airspace, due to the accuracy of the devices in use at that time. Now, it's almost standard to have aircraft at the edges and in the middle of that space, because the modern equipment is so accurate, and we're now operating with reduced vertical separation at higher levels for the same reasons, the equipment is more accurate. I suspect that one of the solutions to the drone issue is to put some of the "fudge factor" back into the levels and routes in order to ensure that it's a lot harder for drones to be in the wrong place at the right moment.

    Anyone that thinks there is a way to control this drone problem is living in cloud cuckoo land, there is no way to ban the production of a drone, unless you want to totally ban all radio controlled models of any sort, which is a massive intrusion into a long established and valid hobby that is not as such a risk, and even if that happens worldwide, which it won't, there will still be very easy ways to produce hardware that capable of controlling a drone from off the shelf modules that are used for other purposes. The number of frequencies that can be used to control them, or to relay FPV signals is also so large and wide that it's not practical or realistic to carry jamming equipment on board aircraft, and such a facility on the ground would have such a detrimental effect on other valid uses of the radio spectrum, it can't be done.

    The potential for damage if a drone goes through an engine core is massive, and the density of some of the components is such that the whole "contained engine failure" certification scenario may have to be revisited, I'd be concerned that a drone has the potential to cause an uncontained engine failure in a way that a bird does not. A long time ago, it was a standing joke that one particular engine failed the test, until it was discovered that someone had forgotten to defrost the bird that was being used for the test. That's not quite so funny now when the potential for significant damage by a drone is considered.

    There is no quick and easy fix to this issue, and it is, for all sorts of reasons, a major issue that will not go away. Large heavy drones were until recently not easy to obtain, they are now very easy and cheap, so the airline and aviation industry has no alternative other than to find ways to minimise the risk to the travelling public.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #13
    smurfjed
    Registered Users Posts: 10,095 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Look at London City where the approach gradient is close to 6 degrees rather than 3 degrees, the number of aircraft which can achieve this gradient is limited, so even if they adopted your idea of increasing the gradient for major airports, the amount of this increase would be very little.

    As far as LHR is concerned, i believe that they are presently using a higher than standard gradient for noise abatement purposes.


  • Options
    #14
    kleefarr
    Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    This is going to give Daesh/ISIS ideas.


  • Options
    #15
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    Realistically they're going to have to have draconian and well advertised penalties for flying drones near airports etc.

    You'll always get morons and those with twisted motives and the technology's generic and out there so putting the genie back into the bottle is basically not possible.

    You could mandate a 'shutdown signal' that would cause drones to power down if flown into areas where it operates, but you couldn't ensure drones all had it.

    Catching remote operators isn't easy either as the signals aren't all that simple to triangulate. That's why registration became mandatory.

    Unfortunately what started out as a rather fun hobby is going to rapidly become a major annoyance and hazard.


  • Options
    #16
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    A friend of mine has a DJI Phantom 4 drone with GPS/GLONASS which has built in no fly zones preventing him from flying it into a restricted area like an airport...

    http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-4/info#specs

    http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_3_Professional-_Flight_Limits_and_No-Fly_Zones

    http://www.dji.com/flysafe/no-fly


  • Options
    #17
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    That's an improvement but, it'll be kind of hard to ensure that rogue operators and existing drones comply. They'll have to get strict on regulations and ban grey market imports to do that.

    Realistically though getting global cooperation should be be easy as no state wants drones as an aviation hazard or snooping over nuclear power stations (as happened in France with alarming regularity for a number of years)


  • Options
    #18
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    12Phase wrote: »
    Realistically they're going to have to have draconian and well advertised penalties for flying drones near airports etc.

    You'll always get morons and those with twisted motives and the technology's generic and out there so putting the genie back into the bottle is basically not possible.

    You could mandate a 'shutdown signal' that would cause drones to power down if flown into areas where it operates, but you couldn't ensure drones all had it.

    Catching remote operators isn't easy either as the signals aren't all that simple to triangulate. That's why registration became mandatory.

    Unfortunately what started out as a rather fun hobby is going to rapidly become a major annoyance and hazard.


    You can " mandate " anything you like , but that wont affect the 500 euro drone imported from China etc

    There are already very significant penalties for endangering aircraft , including jail. Catching and identifying the perpetrator is however not easy.

    The drone registration is useless, the vast majority of " toy " drones are not going to be registered anyway either wilfully or through ignorance

    Its nothing to do with drones anyway, a RC model aircraft flown into the path of an aircraft is exactly the same thing


    the reality is , that aircraft have to be designed to cope with such items as they become " normal" in our technology centric world . Thats the solution


  • Options
    #19
    squonk
    Registered Users Posts: 8,898 ✭✭✭squonk


    Yup there are doubtless going ot be quit ea lot more 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' drones and operators around in future. For a lot of us I'd say with drones, and especially the expensive ones, we'd rather get our dron back home than risk it being damaged by aircraft or disgruntled individuals. Anyone flying a drone in the invirons of an airfield is an idiot. Pure and simple. In most cases with modern drones there are built in no-fly zones for sporting arenas, airports and other areas of public and safety interest. Any regulations or rules brought in will only affect the reputable hobbyists and not the guy who buys something very programmable which won't adhere to no0fly zones. It's sadly the case of a few bad apples spoiling things for everyone else.


  • Options
    #20
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    There are signal jamming devices being tested at some sensitive facilities that are basically pointed at the drone and block all of its control signals and GPS. In most cases that causes them to just land due to loss of communication rather than crash or go crazy.

    The downside is that they also wipe out legitimate and useful communications and sat nav. You'd need special licencing for that kind of equipment and neighbouring data services and mobile phone services would likely be impacted.

    Might be acceptable in maybe a remote max security prison, military installation or nuclear facility etc but not really at an urban airport.

    The French use military grade anti-drone drones at nuclear facilities that aim to capture (with a mesh net) the offending drone or will destroy it if necessary.

    They also were discussing deployment multiple signal location drones - a cluster of small drones that would just fly up high that aim to triangulate the source of the controller.

    You could also deploy permanent drone listening stations at high sites around facilities like airports, nuclear power plant etc on near by hills (maybe even on existing TV, mobile phone, airport comms towers) and use them to record location of signals. That isn't actually very hard to do as all they need to be able to do is listen for the use of particular frequencies or combinations of frequencies and types of transmission, not actually decode the signals.

    The knowledge that such facilities may exist might put people off.

    You'd be assumed to be a terrorist for overflying a facility like that these days and would expect a visit from very serious police.

    I think both engine design to cope with drones and also anti drone measures are needed though.

    I would doubt that the comparison with birds is very useful. Birds are generally a lot squishier than a wire filled lump of plastic with lumps of metal inside (motors etc).


  • Options
    #21
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    fr336 wrote: »
    Anything in the name of profit eh....fingers crossed ISIS and co forget about the existance of drones but I think it unlikely somehow. Such things shouldn't be in the hands of the great unwashed, there should be strict criteria for purchase.

    And you reckon one of them hasn't thought about remote controlled aircraft before this ?

    The whole make everyone register, throw the book at them brigade reminds me to a certain degree of the ban all legally held handguns and we will prevent gun crime in Ireland.

    Yes have harsh penalties for any muppet or worse who is caught flying any remote controlled device near an airport/airfield.
    Of course as others have said finding the people responsible may be difficult.

    The thing that always happens is that genuine law abiding owners are the ones that suffer because of new laws/regulations that the muppets and criminals ignore anyway.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    BoatMad wrote: »
    You can " mandate " anything you like , but that wont affect the 500 euro drone imported from China etc

    There are already very significant penalties for endangering aircraft , including jail. Catching and identifying the perpetrator is however not easy.

    The drone registration is useless, the vast majority of " toy " drones are not going to be registered anyway either wilfully or through ignorance

    Its nothing to do with drones anyway, a RC model aircraft flown into the path of an aircraft is exactly the same thing


    the reality is , that aircraft have to be designed to cope with such items as they become " normal" in our technology centric world . Thats the solution
    Some things are not possible. It's like saying airliners should be able to cope with a bomb because explosives have been around for ages already. A heavy drone carrying a dense battery pack can't really be defended against IMO.


  • Options
    #23
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    12Phase wrote: »
    There are signal jamming devices being tested at some sensitive facilities that are basically pointed at the drone and block all of its control signals and GPS. In most cases that causes them to just land due to loss of communication rather than crash or go crazy.

    The downside is that they also wipe out legitimate and useful communications and sat nav. You'd need special licencing for that kind of equipment and neighbouring data services and mobile phone services would likely be impacted.

    Might be acceptable in maybe a remote max security prison, military installation or nuclear facility etc but not really at an urban airport.

    The French use military grade anti-drone drones at nuclear facilities that aim to capture (with a mesh net) the offending drone or will destroy it if necessary.

    They also were discussing deployment multiple signal location drones - a cluster of small drones that would just fly up high that aim to triangulate the source of the controller.

    You could also deploy permanent drone listening stations at high sites around facilities like airports, nuclear power plant etc on near by hills (maybe even on existing TV, mobile phone, airport comms towers) and use them to record location of signals. That isn't actually very hard to do as all they need to be able to do is listen for the use of particular frequencies or combinations of frequencies and types of transmission, not actually decode the signals.

    The knowledge that such facilities may exist might put people off.

    You'd be assumed to be a terrorist for overflying a facility like that these days and would expect a visit from very serious police.

    I think both engine design to cope with drones and also anti drone measures are needed though.

    I would doubt that the comparison with birds is very useful. Birds are generally a lot squishier than a wire filled lump of plastic with lumps of metal inside (motors etc).


    military technology to jam drone controls is not compatible with operation in a civilian areas , today no such technology in practice exists , that will not for example , also jam all local Wifi stations too.

    triangulating 2.4Gz to a point that allows police interception , is a complex and technically cosily process and the confusion with ordinary 2.4Ghz wireless makes it very hard to actually accomplish outside the lab.

    in most cases, drones may either descend rather quickly , fly in a haphazard manner or if they have a functioning GPS, return to a home location ( that may or may not be programmed correctly ) , you cant tell, so even if you take down all 2.4ghz in an area, you cant be sure of what will happen to the drone , you could precipitate the exact thing you are trying to prevent . Ive seen many forms of RC aircraft ( which includes drones) , fly away in a haphazard manner ( including one last week )

    uniformed people suggesting technical solutions would so well to gen up on the technology first


  • Options
    #24
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    BoatMad wrote: »
    military technology to jam drone controls is not compatible with operation in a civilian areas , today no such technology in practice exists , that will not for example , also jam all local Wifi stations too.

    triangulating 2.4Gz to a point that allows police interception , is a complex and technically cosily process and the confusion with ordinary 2.4Ghz wireless makes it very hard to actually accomplish outside the lab.

    Which is exactly what I said!
    BoatMad wrote: »

    uniformed people suggesting technical solutions would so well to gen up on the technology first

    There's very serious research going on into how to combat risks around drones.
    Some is applicable to commercial air fields, some isn't.

    The focus in the French scenario has been to ensure they do not over fly nuclear power plants, which are usually located in fairly unpopulated areas (although not always).

    The logic in France has been if they have to momentarily wipe out wifi for military reasons, in a fairly rural area, that's what will happen.

    Also it's far from impossible to detect drone video link frequencies especially in non-built up areas.

    Any of them using 5.8GHz (ISM band) will standout like a sore thumb, even in a built up area. WiFi is typically directed internally in a building at low power and is using the very well established 2.4GHz and 5.15–5.725GHz.

    Drone operators are using 2.4GHz outdoors and with far higher output than your typical WiFi router or device. So, again even on those channels will stand out and can be identified quite quickly if you are serious about finding them.

    Hunting them down is far from the impossibility that you're outlining.


  • Options
    #25
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    how to combat risks around drones.
    Some is applicable to commercial air fields, some isn't.

    The focus in the French scenario has been to ensure they do not over fly nuclear power plants, which are usually located in fairly unpopulated areas (although not always).

    The logic in France has been if they have to momentarily wipe out wifi for military reasons, in a fairly rural area, that's what will happen.

    Also it's far from impossible to detect drone video link frequencies especially in non-built up areas.

    Any of them using 5.8GHz (ISM band) will standout like a sore thumb, even in a built up area. WiFi is typically directed internally in a building at low power and is using the very well established 2.4GHz and 5.15–5.725GHz.

    Drone operators are using 2.4GHz outdoors and with far higher output than your typical WiFi router or device. So, again even on those channels will stand out and can be identified quite quickly if you are serious about finding them.

    Hunting them down is far from the impossibility that you're outlining.

    perhaps in a very remote area, it is entirely possible to jam Wifi , mind you the nature is that widespread area jamming , has effects miles and miles away from the intended area and such jamming is high power and very indiscriminate, Its only useful in military emergencies .

    the same technology could not be used in a urban or mainstream civilian airport, the loss of wide areas wifi would and could be catastrophic

    Drone operators are using 2.4GHz outdoors and with far higher output than your typical WiFi router or device

    no there are not higher power , to do so its illegal and its not necessary anyway . 2,4Ghz can reach kilometres when unobstructed and with directed antennas

    Any of them using 5.8GHz (ISM band) will standout like a sore thumb, even in a built up area.

    lots of wifi on 5.8Ghz, all apple devices for example

    learn my friend before making pronouncements

    Military jamming is wide area and non selective , typically a military jams signals that it itself doesn't need ( which is actually making wifi jamming more difficult for the military )

    spread spectrum frequency hopping 2,4Ghz ( and 5,8) was designed to be resistant to interference ( aka jamming ) , and requires in essence the whole band to be jammed with quite high power non directed signals. again this not compatible with operations in an commercial civilian space.
    Hunting them down is far from the impossibility that you're outlining.

    deploying small ground to air missiles would probably be a better solution , and practical with current military technology , though I suspect the risks associated with such actions in crowded civil airline spaces might render it somewhat heart stopping

    Hunting down the user ( using his iPhone ) for example is not impossible, I didn't say it was. I said it was a costly and difficult undertaking , especially in areas of significant wifi activity. in practice , it is not a solution that can be readily implemented


  • Options
    #26
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    They're going to have to come up with some kind of a better way of actually detecting them too. Even in perfect visibility, it's going to be relatively tricky for an airfield to be aware of absolutely every small object in the air.

    Most of these drones are tiny.

    Would they be THAT problematic for modern engines though?
    Given that birds while a lot squishier would typically contain rocks (gizzard used for chewing up food and as a ballast weight) and also could have things like metal rings on feet etc which wouldn't be much worse than a small electric motor.

    Anyone flying a drone over an airfield though really deserves what's coming to them legally.


  • Options
    #27
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    BoatMad wrote: »
    lots of wifi on 5.8Ghz, all apple devices for example

    learn my friend before making pronouncements

    ETSI limits use of 5745 to 5825 MHz to Short Range Devices with a maximum 25mW. Those standards are typically adhered to by routers and hardware sold here and would make WiFi devices quite hard to detect beyond their immediate vicinity, especially when they're mostly used in buildings.

    A lot of the specs on the UAVs mention 1200mW and even 2000mW transmission which is a hell of a lot more than your typical consumer wifi device will ever use.


  • Options
    #28
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    12Phase wrote: »
    ETSI limits use of 5745 to 5825 MHz to Short Range Devices with a maximum 25mW. Those standards are typically adhered to by routers and hardware sold here and would make WiFi devices quite hard to detect beyond their immediate vicinity, especially when they're mostly used in buildings.

    the chip sets in drones use the same power output. drones have line of sight and are high up and free from in line obstructions wifi can go 20km with Yagis . I know , cause I've done it


  • Options
    #29
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    So what are the 1200mW transmitters being mentioned all over the web on specs for various drone camera modules etc being used for?


  • Options
    #30
    Homer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭Homer


    Ironic that after registering my drone in December with the IAA that just this morning I received my official registration decals to affix to my drone (1.8kg) in the post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    12Phase wrote: »
    ETSI limits use of 5745 to 5825 MHz to Short Range Devices with a maximum 25mW. Those standards are typically adhered to by routers and hardware sold here and would make WiFi devices quite hard to detect beyond their immediate vicinity, especially when they're mostly used in buildings.

    A lot of the specs on the UAVs mention 1200mW and even 2000mW transmission which is a hell of a lot more than your typical consumer wifi device will ever use.

    yes but ETSI allows devices with output power control to use up to 1W on certain section of the 5,8ghz band ( radio Lan B )


Advertisement