Drones shut down Dublin Airport

[Mazdaman323lx]

The Irish times now reports that the Drone sighting may have been a false alarm as authorities were unable to find a second witness . (The original being a pilot taxiing) . Quite possible he mistook a hovering Kestrel as a drone . Damage is done to drone operators rep regardless of the outcome . Even ATC were unable to spot it .

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Look forward to the follow up articles posted by Independent.ie (and other such) to print corrections as they as released by authorities.
They wouldn't want the public to get any negative connotations of drones now, would they ?
I know, don't hold your breath

 

[SmilingOgre]

My father used to say if you you are following a woman driver into an intersection and the left blinker is on and her arm is out the left window, what do you know? Answer: the car window is down. Same here. I can conclude the airport took this very seriously.

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

Dublin Airport: Flights delayed for third day after drone sightings near runway

Significant disruption was caused at Dublin Airport again this evening after a drone was spotted on the airfield – the third time flights have had to be suspended in recent days.

www.independent.ie

Third Day of drone sightings and airport closures

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

"after a drone was spotted on the airfield"

Isn't that a bit far fetched ?
Even if a drone pilot was so stupid or ignorant enough to fly a drone RIGHT OVER and land on the grounds of Dublin airport, would they even be ABLE to do that without loss of signal, and take off again etc ??

If it was a DJI drone it should be impossible with the Flysafe NFZ that must be in place there.
If another type, then it is very rare (few in number) to have such models with very good signal like DJI.

You would think someone must have seen it fly off if it was known to be on the airfield somewhere.
The fact they say this 'thing' was on the ground and little else doesn't give it a lot of believability . . . to me or possibly the general drone community at least, the general public via such news sites will believe it though

Does the 'airport’s drone detection system', (along with input from airline pilots, ground crew and air traffic control provide a “rigorous and robust” monitoring system), show them anything remotely like a pilots location ?
If for 3 days they haven't been able to detect the pilot, it's not that rigorous or robust.
They should be / should have been well and truly ready to pounce this time.

If this was done on purpose, hopefully they will catch the perpetrators very soon !
This ongoing mainstream news just gives authorities more ammo to bring in more restrictions.

 

[sar104]

"after a drone was spotted on the airfield"

Isn't that a bit far fetched ?
Even if a drone pilot was so stupid or ignorant enough to fly a drone RIGHT OVER and land on the grounds of Dublin airport, would they even be ABLE to do that without loss of signal, and take off again etc ??

I'm quite sure that they didn't mean that it had landed - they meant it was flying on airport grounds.

If it was a DJI drone it should be impossible with the Flysafe NFZ that must be in place there.
If another type, then it is very rare (few in number) to have such models with very good signal like DJI.

So since a non-geofenced (or disabled geofence) drone would be needed to fly there, then by definition that's both possible and the likely explanation. There are plenty of sUAS makes out there with both good signal range and no geofencing. Autel, for example.

You would think someone must have seen it fly off if it was known to be on the airfield somewhere.

The airport covers around 10 km², much of it not very close to anyone on the ground.

Does the 'airport’s drone detection system', (along with input from airline pilots, ground crew and air traffic control provide a “rigorous and robust” monitoring system), show them anything remotely like a pilots location ?

That depends on the model, and whether it is broadcasting that information.

If for 3 days they haven't been able to detect the pilot, it's not that rigorous or robust.
They should be / should have been well and truly ready to pounce this time.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Detection is not the same as interception.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I'm quite sure that they didn't mean that it had landed - they meant it was flying on airport grounds.

On the airfield was the report, maybe was over the airfield, it's fairly clear what each means.
Only referring to what was printed, and hopefully passed on correctly by those making the ascertations.

There are plenty of sUAS makes out there with both good signal range and no geofencing. Autel, for example.

Yes, but as with Australia, finding the other good drone models is like finding rocking horse sh . . . ah, hens teeth getting any of the other good makes outside the USA.
I don't think Autel can keep up with US demand, or has those supply chains like DJI.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Detection is not the same as interception.

Maybe they'll work out something soon, no good just detecting them now, they need to stop it.
As it's supposedly happened 3 days running, it'd have to be assumed it's some mischief making drone owner.

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

The fact that this is 3 days in a row rules out a clueless operator , who would have surely heard in the media about the disruptions he was causing and the extent of trouble he would be in if caught . IMO this is a malicious attack on airport operations by someone using either a flashed DJI Drone or non DJI drone with no geo fencing. This in itself shows that the perpetrator knows exactly what he is doing and is fully aware of the restrictions he is contravening and how to circumvent them . What their agenda is , and how much further they are willing to go remains to be seen

 

[123taff]

Hmmmmmmm - - - I wonder - - - - - - - - -One person lodged 23,431 noise complaints about Dublin Airport in 2022

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

Saw that . That's 67 calls a day , every day . That's some axe to grind.

 

[Mcgon]

Man charged after drone activity at Dublin Airport

A man has been charged with interfering with aviation operations after a drone was flown near Dublin Airport last month.

www.rte.ie

Might make an example of him

 

[Walleye Hunter]

Man charged after drone activity at Dublin Airport

A man has been charged with interfering with aviation operations after a drone was flown near Dublin Airport last month.

www.rte.ie

Might make an example of him

It would be justifiable given the overall costs to all involved. IMO, it would be appropriate to tally it up and saddle him with the bill.

 

[drhitch54]

Could be revenge flights for theNew Runway that opened recently. Many Many unhappy locals complaining about noise levels that they were assured would not affect them ? .

Dublin Airport apologises over noise as North Runway flights to be rerouted

Dublin Airport has apologised and said flights departing from the new North Runway will be rerouted after local communities were “unexpectedly overflown”.

www.independent.ie

Interesting.
So, if I'm against the new runway I have "my rights" to interfere with an entire airport's flight operations by weaponizing my drone? Those locals have no rights. Take the battle to court, not to the air! Makes it look bad for us responsible UAV pilots

 

[lookout]

The Irish times now reports that the Drone sighting may have been a false alarm as authorities were unable to find a second witness . (The original being a pilot taxiing) . Quite possible he mistook a hovering Kestrel as a drone . Damage is done to drone operators rep regardless of the outcome . Even ATC were unable to spot it .

Just. Like. Gatwick.

The apparent politics with a drone are worse than the actual drone itself.

Now back to your regularly scheduled reality where legislators do things based on something other than hysteria.

 

[Rojan]

Another "report" of drones spotted without actually "reporting" who it was that saw the drones. Perhaps interview the person that claims they saw a drone and "report" that. But nope they'll just run with it as the gospel.

Detected by airport security systems and sighted by staff. Maybe check your facts before making assumptions.

 

[Rojan]

Another "report" of drones spotted without actually "reporting" who it was that saw the drones. Perhaps interview the person that claims they saw a drone and "report" that. But nope they'll just run with it as the gospel.

Perhaps check the facts before spouting nonsense.
Detected by ‘airport systems’ was reported on the news, also2 confirmed sightings by aircrew.
Seeing some other comments below, firstly of course they will shut down operations and divert aircraft temporarily, safety first. Although a small-ish drone might ‘bounce off’ an airframe, if ingested into one of engines it could be devastating. A bird weighing A fraction of a Mavic Pro, would destroy a turbine and could cause loss of control of an aircraft and/or fire. A drone is made of much tougher materials than birds!

So to seal the argument here is the latest news Man accused of disrupting Dublin Airport banned from flying drones as bail condition

 

[Ty Pilot]

Detected by airport security systems and sighted by staff. Maybe check your facts before making assumptions.

Maybe learn how to read and comprehend what was written before you respond. Also try to put into context when this new information came out vs when I made my post. You'll note (if you read), the report you posted came out on February the 10th - correct me if I am wrong but doesn't February the 4th come six days before the 10th?

I was responding specifically to the (single) report from February 4th that was in the first post of this thread. No mention of the source of the sighting was made in THAT report. Which is why I posted what I did.

So to sum it up - if there have been further reports that do go into details, good for those reports but I was not responding to them. My beef is with that original report and it's complete lack of detail.

Man accused of disrupting Dublin Airport banned from flying drones as bail condition

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

Looking at his address location ( Red Pin on map ) he is living just over one mile from the runway Threshold . Obviously he is none too pleased with the new runway and its associated noise .

 

[Rojan]

Maybe learn how to read and comprehend what was written before you respond. Also try to put into context when this new information came out vs when I made my post. You'll note (if you read), the report you posted came out on February the 10th - correct me if I am wrong but doesn't February the 4th come six days before the 10th?

I was responding specifically to the (single) report from February 4th that was in the first post of this thread. No mention of the source of the sighting was made in THAT report. Which is why I posted what I did.

So to sum it up - if there have been further reports that do go into details, good for those reports but I was not responding to them. My beef is with that original report and it's complete lack of detail.

Actually I was responding to your immature assumption that this was an unreliable report and you were dismissive of that.

Also you failed to read the report correctly - the report stated that there had been 3 drone sightings at that time, not one (as you incorrectly stated in your first reply “I was responding specifically to the (single) report from February 4th that was in the first post of this thread.”)

The report from the 10th was the summary of the previous reports from the 3rd & 4th Feb., not a report of a new sighting, and of the arrest and charging of the man accused of the crime.

Flying a drone in such an irresponsible way is sheer stupidity, unfortunately there are those who do so either from ignorance or they just don’t care, but dismissing such reports in a manner that suggests it doesn’t matter and shouldn’t be taken seriously is not a good move.

oh, and the reason nobody interviewed the suspect is that the information on who that was, wasn’t made public until the 10th, so the initial report was about as good as it could be.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Actually I was responding to your immature assumption that this was an unreliable report and you were dismissive of that.

I didn't assume anything when I read the OPs report, I was simply noting the lack of supporting evidence that many years ago would be associated with such a report.

Also you failed to read the report correctly - the report stated that there had been 3 drone sightings at that time, not one (as you incorrectly stated in your first reply “I was responding specifically to the (single) report from February 4th that was in the first post of this thread.”)

Here again reading comprehension is lacking. The "report" refers to the body of statements within the single report that was posted in post number one (1).

oh, and the reason nobody interviewed the suspect is that the information on who that was, wasn’t made public until the 10th, so the initial report was about as good as it could be.

This is where we disagree. My beef is not, and never has been; about the incidents that happened causing the shut down at Dublin. On multiple occasions I even said that shutting down was prudent and had I been in charge there, I would have done the same. (posts #5 and #9)

I am simply getting commenting on the state of "Modern" journalism or the lack-there of. There was a time when a reporter would not knowingly dare to make a statement unless they could confirm the authenticity as it was felt to make a mistake or false statement was a personal shame. Over the last 50 years however we've gotten to the point where this is no longer true. News media cares more about narrative than facts, mistakes and miscues are forgotten as fast as they are said.