BBC article (2/12/19): DJI makes safety improvements to geo-fencing

[Tony Kiburis]

This BBC article reports DJI's changes to geo-fencing in response to the Gatwick Drone indecent.

Clicke here: DJI makes drone safety improvements

 

[Numone]

THIS has more information...

 

[Porky]

This BBC article reports DJI's changes to geo-fencing in response to the Gatwick Drone indecent.

Clicke here: DJI makes drone safety improvements

Does make me laugh, the media (BBC) still thinks it’s drone related, going by their wording in the above link, so it’s official then, drones flying at Gatwick...

 

[Tony Kiburis]

Does make me laugh, the media (BBC) still thinks it’s drone related, going by their wording in the above link, so it’s official then, drones flying at Gatwick...

Since you live in the UK, I'd like to know what is your take on the Gatwick indecent?
In the US we only get the headlines but no details.
Thanks,
Tony

 

[Numone]

It was originally one possible drone close to Gatwick, which suddenly became a whole swarm of them, as more and more people reported drone "sightings" over the following 24 hours...

 

[zocalo]

Since you live in the UK, I'd like to know what is your take on the Gatwick indecent?
In the US we only get the headlines but no details.
Thanks,
Tony

There were apparently at least some sightings that are being treated as credible, e.g. by police, airport staff, etc., which I gather (we don't get all the details either) triggered at least two, and possibly three, of the shutdown periods. One of those shutdowns (the last, fairly short, one) *may* have been the result of the technical measures put in place, but that was never made 100% clear. Equally, it does seem likely that there were a *lot* of false reports or ambiguous sightings and it's entirely possible that at least some of the shutdowns were not as a result of an actual drone.

There haven't been any further updates since though, so I'm at this point I'm assuming that the perpetrator(s) and their motives are going to remain unknown, although enquiries are no doubt continuing.

 

[Steve Murray]

At one point, the MSM reported that the police thought it might be one of theirs!

 

[philbr118]

This BBC article reports DJI's changes to geo-fencing in response to the Gatwick Drone indecent.

Clicke here: DJI makes drone safety improvements

Geo-fencing has been here for a while, but criminals are called criminals for a reason, they do illegal stuff like hacking software and over riding the geo-fencing !

 

[Congoblue]

That new geofencing should be an improvement for legitimate users though, better than the big circular splodge approach which makes an NFZ in areas that don't need to be.

 

[dawgpilot]

DJI already announced this change to their geofencing system last fall. It's been live in the USA since November 2018 or so.

 

[Porky]

Since you live in the UK, I'd like to know what is your take on the Gatwick indecent?
In the US we only get the headlines but no details.
Thanks,
Tony

Hi Tony, I’m not going to get into all the legal crap but surely we need %100 proof of a sighting which there hasn’t been, seems like the mud has stuck on us but the powers to be are putting thing in place so this doesn’t happen again, agree with that but don’t make us the scapegoat

 

[Peter Hughes]

Personally I think geo fencing is a good idea. I’d never rely on it solely but if it helps me avoid risking people’s lives in the pursuit of my hobby then bring it on.

Inevitable mention of the airport incidents and whilst the jury’s still out over Gatwick, there was a court case over Heathrow. Does any one know what the outcome was?

I don’t remember seeing any mention of it other than the upcoming case. Peter

 

[zocalo]

Inevitable mention of the airport incidents and whilst the jury’s still out over Gatwick, there was a court case over Heathrow. Does any one know what the outcome was?

Just someone being dumb rather than malicious intent, and an admission of guilt. Fines and costs of £2,285 and the drone (model aircraft, really) was confiscated - more here and here.

 

[Peter Hughes]

Just someone being dumb rather than malicious intent, and an admission of guilt. Fines and costs of £2,285 and the drone (model aircraft, really) was confiscated - more here and here.

Thanks for that, I did wonder at the time, then it slipped my mind and only just thought about it again when these posts reminded me. Take care. Peter

 

[DesG]

Hi Tony, I’m not going to get into all the legal crap but surely we need %100 proof of a sighting which there hasn’t been, seems like the mud has stuck on us but the powers to be are putting thing in place so this doesn’t happen again, agree with that but don’t make us the scapegoat

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of 'trial by media'. This over-rules all other legal process.

 

[MaviCam]

Geo-fencing has been here for a while, but criminals are called criminals for a reason, they do illegal stuff like hacking software and over riding the geo-fencing !

Tell me more about this. I am assuming the "hacking" you are referring to is the changing of parameters in the drone. Is it illegal to change the parameter that limits how quickly the drone can ascend or descend? Is there actually a law that says I can't change the parameters in my drones?

 

[Johnmcl7]

Geo-fencing has been here for a while, but criminals are called criminals for a reason, they do illegal stuff like hacking software and over riding the geo-fencing !

No you are incorrect, this is a new feature that DJI have added specifically to stop problems like Gatwick happening again.

Just in case it's not obvious, I'm not being serious and you are indeed correct. What irritates me though is reading that BBC article it to me is claiming that DJI have introduced a new feature to stop what happened at Gatwick happening again. During the Gatwick incident itself I saw several large media outlets also claiming that you can go to a large electronics store, buy a drone and out of the box fly it into an airport. In turn on general forums I saw a lot of comments with people complaining about the lack of regulation causing this problem not realising that these flights were completely illegal and not possible with an unmodified standard drone.

 

[Tony Kiburis]

I'm old enough to remember UFOs frequently being in the headlines.
Upon investigation most were explained as not being alien driven but natural events.
It looks like drones have become the UFOs of today.
Fly safe guys,
Tony

 

[Tony Kiburis]

Does make me laugh, the media (BBC) still thinks it’s drone related, going by their wording in the above link, so it’s official then, drones flying at Gatwick...

Mr. Porky,
Wow, you have a great weather web site!
it's far more informative than any weather site across the pond here in the States.
I'm very impressed.
All the best,
Tony

 

[Numone]

The only fact in this incident is, there aren't any...at all! Yep... it may've been a drone... or another plastic bag incident, where the pilots see a drone 10 metres above them as they're landing on final approach at 220 knots, dropping to 135 as they hit the deck. I'd defy anyone to see any consumer drone at that distance, at that speed. And the wake of the aircraft as it passed would probably tear the drone from the sky too. Yes, we've all seen the drone footage from less close encounters but, unbelievably stupid and reckless that they are, they're very few and far between. Judging by the numbers of drone sightings over those 2.5 days seen at Gatwick (wasn't it at least three flying at the same time at one point?) surely there should've been a few more proudly uploaded by the idiotic f'wits who really do commit these incredibly dangerous acts? Hmmmmm....