5 years in prison is woefully inadequate ……..

Analysis from A2 Global Risk consultancy

ANALYSIS

The incident highlights the vulnerability of commercial aviation to the use of UAVs, as well as a severe lack of preparedness from airport authorities and law enforcement officials to the threat.

The disruption demonstrates how UK regulations have not kept up with rising demand for and use of UAVs, both for commercial and personal purposes. It also reveals a lack of contingency planning and approved threat-neutralisation procedures, despite the pre-existence of technologies such as overriding and signal jamming. For instance, law enforcement officers were only given approval to shoot down the UAVs on the evening of 20 December. This option had previously been considered too dangerous due to the risk of stray bullets.

The incident highlights the escalating risk that UAVs pose to aircraft and airports globally. While in the UK in 2013 there were no recorded aircraft incidents involving UAVs, the figure stands at almost 120 so far this year. Many of these are ‘near-miss’ incidents, in which aircraft pass close to UAVs – most often when taking off or landing.

Passenger, cargo and large military aircraft are particularly vulnerable to collisions. Earlier this year, tests carried out by the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) revealed that even mid-sized UAVs can cause significant damage to aircraft wings when the matter move at a high approach speed. On 12 December, an Aeromexico Boeing 737-800 struck an object – thought to be a UAV – on its approach to Tijuana International Airport (TIJ), adjacent to the US-Mexico border. The collision severely damaged the aircraft’s nose, however the plane landed safely and without any major structural damage to the fuselage. Aircraft engines are especially vulnerable to collisions with UAVs.

Beyond disrupting civil aviation, UAVs pose multifaceted threats to individuals, property and critical infrastructure. In August 2018, an assassination attempt was made against Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Attackers flew two UAVs carrying improvised explosive devices (IEDs) towards Maduro at a military ceremony in the capital Caracas, injuring seven soldiers. In France in July 2018, environmental activists intentionally flew a UAV into the side of a spent-fuel pool building at the Bugey nuclear powerplant, approximately 32km west of the city of Lyon, to demonstrate the vulnerability of such buildings. No damage was caused to the plant.

FORECAST

In the immediate term, there is a heightened risk of copycat incidents. These would most likely take place at airports, but could also target locations where other forms of high-speed transport occur, such as motorways, or large public gatherings such as concerts or sporting events.

In the short- and medium-term, there will be calls for stricter regulations on the use of UAVs, particularly in the UK, where new requirements on registration with the civil aviation authority (CAA) and online safety tests will come into force next year. Possible additional reform could include an increase in the minimum distance that UAVs must be away from airports and airfields. The minimum distance is currently 1km. Manufacturers are also likely to be required to place geo-fencing technology – which stops drones entering programmed areas – on their products.

Companies which use UAVs for commercial purposes, such as filming or surveillance, should ensure that operators have the correct permission from domestic civil aviation authorities, and that operators follow height and distance rules. Legal teams should monitor and anticipate new guidelines and legislative developments and communicate these internally.

Security managers should assess how their personnel and assets would be impacted by the flying of UAVs near their sites, and consider developing contingency planning in the event of an incident.

They have developed an electronic fence to surround prisons to stop drone delivery of contraband.
No doubt they will expand it to surround airports in due course? Hopefully it won’t prevent the use of wifi.

I think they(whom ever they are) should also be responsible for the extra cost involved with the airlines ,like diversion, hotels and meals.

….a rap on the knuckles and 10 hours community service (watching for drones!). This is the U.K. we mustn’t infringe their human rights.

One should also remember that in the past, the courts have been very lenient towards this sort of thing.

London City
Black Lives Matter group plead guilty to airport trespass
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/black-lives-matter-group-plead-guilty-to-airport-trespass-jbxfj397g
Nine activists who grounded up to 131 flights with a so-called Black Lives Matter protest at London City Airport have been sentenced for breaching security.
(Suspended sentences)

This is unbelievable…

Gatwick police: there may have been no drone after all

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gatwick-police-there-may-have-been-no-drone-after-all-f9k8v0vjt