To think drones need to banned ASAP

[Wanttoretirebefore90]

It's not going to be long until one takes down a dreamliner and kills 600 :(

Ok, let’s put it that way, if we are choosing, would you choose to build an airport where Heathrow is?

Signal jamming wouldn't work, they canbe programmed on a route

If it requires GPS to stay on said route, this can be blocked. If it's just programmed with go forward, left a bit, go forward, etc - then you need a physical interceptor. Something like a drone for instance....

Stop being pedantic, it's about minimising the risk not removing it all together

Ok, let’s put it that way, if we are choosing, would you choose to build an airport where Heathrow is?

I wouldn't choose to put London where it is, either, but we're dealing with the real world. When Heathrow was built, it wasn't contiguous with London.

If it requires GPS to stay on said route, this can be blocked.

GPS jamming over a major airport might have...implications.

What a load of absolutely ridiculous hysteria on this thread. I can only hope that most of it is tongue in cheek because the thought that anyone is really that thick is really quite depressing.

Move Heathrow? Yeah, just like that, and what do you do with the air traffic for the 30 years it will take to build a new airport and high speed rail link? Not fly over London? Better close Gatwick and city airports as well then. And stanstead? Oh and all those other airports in the world in big cities because of the (potential) for a air crash which hasn’t actually happened in the history of Heathrow yet. Actually let’s ban air travel because of the potential for a one in billions risk. Hey here’s a thought. Why not ban cars first because of the literally thousands of people who are killed in or by them every single day. Don’t see people calling for that do we? Why ever not...

.

So why do we keep trying to expand it if it’s in the wrong place?

Oh do one no one said moving Heathrow would be an overnight thing!

Because thats what governments do, put a sticking plaster on and leave the problem for someone else to deal with!

Oh yes, SummerGems, using insults a always the best way lead a discussion.

Makes the rest of your post look really eloquent.

Move the airport? 😂 Yes lets spend millions just simply moving the airport how hard can it be right? 😂

Maybe just ban drones or bring in some kind of licence etc and stop less dickheads buying them

We will be spending billions of taxpayers money to extend it, PinkHeart. We might as well spend that money on something better that a patch up job.

Should be banned or at least license required for them.

There's been one going around our neighbor hood that people have spotted in their gardens and near windows!

Oh and all those other airports in the world in big cities because of the (potential) for a air crash which hasn’t actually happened in the history of Heathrow yet.

Actually, it has. Four people killed on the ground by the crash of a Viking operating out of Heathrow in 1958.. It would be a lot nastier today. The point is that the risk is quantifiably very low, not that it's zero.

Ditto an incident in Manchester

it's worth noting that it's no accident these are in the 1950s, when the accident rate in aircraft was several orders of magnitude higher per flight than it is today.

I would love a drone to land in my garden. Because then I would have the pleasure of getting our big hammer out and smashing it into 100 pieces.

GPS jamming over a major airport might have...implications.

Lol.
But I didn't mean generally. Just localised targetting, delivered by a mobile, airborne device. Like a drone.....

I'm saying the answer to drones are drones.

Generally, fighting the threat posed by a new(er) technology or sudden mainstreaming of one by fighting said technology tends not to work very well. Better to embrace and use it against itself.

Internet was a threat to libraries. You don't protect the library by fighting the internet, you get the internet into the library and the library onto the internet.

Just localised targetting, delivered by a mobile, airborne device

That's an interesting proposition. Localising the jamming so that it's powerful enough to overwhelm the target without impacting other users (not just aircraft: all the people travelling to the airport in cars, Uber, etc) is going to be hard. GPS is around 1.5GHz so it's directional, but a drone fitted with a steerable beam is going to be quite a thing. And as an autonomous drone isn't necessarily going to be transmitting, locking on to it is going to be hard: "track a low-cross section object and direct a 1.5GHz beam onto it" is quite the challenge.

I came on this while looking up L1: www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2017-06/marshall.pdf

Apparently localised jammers in lorry cabs to defeat tachos and employer systems are a thing.

Very true Adam, but internet didn’t threaten to physically destroy the libraries, or at least not immediately and violently, the way a drone can destroy an aircraft.

@lavenderhidcote I'd do the same

We (or rather our democratically elected government of an allegedly free society) can't just go around banning everything and anything just because it is not essential and might be used for nefarious purposes.

Besides, every man and his dog now knows how much disruption drones can cause to an airport. Banning them may reduce the likelihood of the average muppet thinking it's a bit of a wheeze to shutdown an airport but criminals, terrorists and rogue nations will almost certainly be looking on with interest and may well think of adding such tactics to their arsenal. Bans are only effective against generally law abiding citizens.

There are already sufficient laws in place governing the use of drones. The only viable solution is for the police and security services to catch up with the technology and implement effective means of combating any illegal use.

What the heck has the location of Heathrow got to do with problems with drones?

Banning drones because they can be used to disrupt airports would be like banning cars because they can be used to kill people. Drones are useful and regulation should not kill those uses.

Indeed, I'd say that when a relatively lightweight drone does aerial filming that would previously have required a helicopter, that's an improvement in safety for people on the ground.

Because Heathrow is an acceptable danger with having so many flights going over such a big city.

A disaster could happen. Look at Shoreham, empty feilds everywhere yet it tragically hit a junction on a busy road.

A dreamliner full of fuel crashing down in the west end could rival 911 for tragedies. With Erin technology advancing it could threaten the safety of commercial flights.

A dreamliner

Why is the OP, and everyone else, caught up with "dreamliners" which are a small, modern, largely composite aircraft of notable fuel efficiency and therefore less fuel carried? Of all the aircraft flying out of Heathrow, the Boeing 787 is surely one of the less "risky"?

If you want to full "oh my God! The risk!" then surely a 747 or an A380 would make for a more fear-inducing fantasy? Big, heavy, lots of people? Or perhaps some of the ancient mouldering shite flown by third world airlines on the fringes of the EU prohibition list?

Banning drones because they can be used to disrupt airports would be like banning cars because they can be used to kill people. Drones are useful and regulation should not kill those uses

I feel it’s worth pointing out here that drones are currently largely unregulated whereas cars and driving are highly regulated. Very few people are saying ‘ban drones’ rather they are asking for regulation. To drive a car you must have passed a test, hold a licence, have insurance, registration and regular maintenance checks on your car. This goes some way towards stopping and Tom, Dick or Harry piling down the motorway in a jalopy and causing a multiple pile up.