Interpol rehearsal at Oslo airport: How police can stop threat drones

[John117]

For the first time, international police practiced stopping drones at an airport where traffic was running. It happened at Oslo lufthamn.

Se video: Interpol-øving på Gardermoen: Slik kan politiet stoppe trussel-droner (text in Norwegian: use google translate to read in your language)

 

[restyler]

Part of the translation says:-

"On 19 December 2018, air traffic was stopped to and from Gatwick Airport outside London. Several thousand flights were canceled and 140,000 passengers were injured. Police suspected that climate activists were behind it, but this has never been proven"

Well its pretty much now been established that there were no drones at all around Gatwick at that time - the "Witness" was wrong - FULL STORY

It carries on:-
"The equipment can equalize frequencies and take over or control drones that pose a threat.

Superintendent of Police Jan Otto Johansen explains how "Dronekiller" works, a device that is aimed at the drone.

- This is a tug of war between the pilot who stands with the remote control he who stands with the jamme rifle. It is a classic tug-of-war over who sends the strongest signal, Johansen explains.

He is the project leader for the antidrone work in the police. They are responsible for preventing future drone attacks"

Now I'm no expert, but if someone was to pre-program in a "flying mission" say - all around the control tower then back to base, would the "Frequency Jammer" still be able to intercept & bring down that drone?

 

[Dronut]

Now I'm no expert, but if someone was to pre-program in a "flying mission" say - all around the control tower then back to base, would the "Frequency Jammer" still be able to intercept & bring down that drone?

Will a drone that is programmed to go to a waypoint do a Return To Home if it loses connection with the controller? I don't have a drone capable of doing waypoints so I can't check. What about someone who DOES have a waypoint capable drone?

 

[restyler]

I've got the m2z, but I'm still learning & I've only done 1 waypoint mission so far.
If it loses connection with the controller, it will continue with the "mission" up till the point when it only has enough power to get home.
I think it can also be programmed to land when at the end of battery life.

 

[thispilothere]

Part of the translation says:-

"On 19 December 2018, air traffic was stopped to and from Gatwick Airport outside London. Several thousand flights were canceled and 140,000 passengers were injured. Police suspected that climate activists were behind it, but this has never been proven"

Well its pretty much now been established that there were no drones at all around Gatwick at that time - the "Witness" was wrong - FULL STORY

They spent 5 million pounds on an Israeli drone dome, weeks of military deployment, years of investigating and falsely arrested a couple (which cost another 200k pounds) all over mass hysteria. Every expert has told police that it was something other than a drone and no one, even the people reporting sightings, were able to get a photo - yet police STILL insist it was a drone attack. Their ego can't accept that they were wrong and caught up in the hysteria. And, of course the incident - THAT WASN'T A DRONE - was used to tighten drone laws and to "deploy detection systems throughout the UK to combat this threat." Even a completely made up event is enough reason to further surveil the population. What's next they need access to all cell phone cameras to combat, let's think, Bigfoot threat?

Anyway, by the time they get the gun on site, you'll be gone.

 

[TRogan42]

))))

 

[Crashdummytest]

They spent 5 million pounds on an Israeli drone dome, weeks of military deployment, years of investigating and falsely arrested a couple (which cost another 200k pounds) all over mass hysteria. Every expert has told police that it was something other than a drone and no one, even the people reporting sightings, were able to get a photo - yet police STILL insist it was a drone attack. Their ego can't accept that they were wrong and caught up in the hysteria. And, of course the incident - THAT WASN'T A DRONE - was used to tighten drone laws and to "deploy detection systems throughout the UK to combat this threat." Even a completely made up event is enough reason to further surveil the population. What's next they need access to all cell phone cameras to combat, let's think, Bigfoot threat?

Anyway, by the time they get the gun on site, you'll be gone.

The only confirmed drone was the airports own drone. That is what people actually saw, most likely.

 

[maelstrom]

Well its pretty much now been established that there were no drones at all around Gatwick at that time

Every expert has told police that it was something other than a drone and no one, even the people reporting sightings, were able to get a photo - yet police STILL insist it was a drone attack.

But none of the “experts” has any actual evidence/proof that there wasn’t a drone - it’s just their opinion. They may be correct, but, equally, the police may be correct. No one knows for certain. People definitely saw something which precipitated the alert. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - when the whole thing is over, it’s easy for people (experts?) who weren’t involved to sit back and analyse the situation and say “there probably wasn’t a drone”. What they can’t say is that there definitely wasn’t a drone (which is what some of them are implying).

However, the airport authorities had to make a quick decision based on the safety of aircraft and passengers. If they had done nothing and something like a drone strike had actually occurred, the public outcry would have been fully justified. Remember that absence of evidence isn‘t evidence of absence! Just because you can’t prove something happened, that doesn’t mean it didn’t.

 

[Crashdummytest]

But none of the “experts” has any actual evidence/proof that there wasn’t a drone - it’s just their opinion. They may be correct, but, equally, the police may be correct. No one knows for certain. People definitely saw something which precipitated the alert. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - when the whole thing is over, it’s easy for people (experts?) who weren’t involved to sit back and analyse the situation and say “there probably wasn’t a drone”. What they can’t say is that there definitely wasn’t a drone (which is what some of them are implying).

However, the airport authorities had to make a quick decision based on the safety of aircraft and passengers. If they had done nothing and something like a drone strike had actually occurred, the public outcry would have been fully justified. Remember that absence of evidence isn‘t evidence of absence! Just because you can’t prove something happened, that doesn’t mean it didn’t.

Negative proof is of no interest. It is pretty clear that this was all a misunderstanding of some sort, and if any drone was seen it was the local airport drone, operated by airport personnel.

 

[maelstrom]

Negative proof is of no interest. It is pretty clear that this was all a misunderstanding of some sort, and if any drone was seen it was the local airport drone, operated by airport personnel.

That’s definitely a possibility, but there’s no actual evidence that this was the case. It only opinion. The ”negative proof” applies equally to the no-drone theory.

 

[Crashdummytest]

That’s definitely a possibility, but there’s no actual evidence that this was the case. It only opinion. The ”negative proof” applies equally to the no-drone theory.

No it doesn't. There were no spaceships there either .

 

[maelstrom]

No it doesn't. There were no spaceships there either .

Ah, I understand now… You’re basing your sarcasm on the fact that you know, beyond a reasonable doubt that there wasn’t a drone. I envy your certainty! I prefer to follow the evidence which, in this case, is absent for either side of the argument.

 

[Crashdummytest]

Ah, I understand now… You’re basing your sarcasm on the fact that you know, beyond a reasonable doubt that there wasn’t a drone. I envy your certainty! I prefer to follow the evidence which, in this case, is absent for either side of the argument.

Not meaning to be sarcastic. And of course you are right in a sense. But the current evidence points to no drones. But I am not fanatic about that, could change my mind if some evidence came up. The poor couple that was accused seem very innocent, just hobbyists like myself.

 

[maelstrom]

But the current evidence points to no drones.

There is no evidence, that’s the whole point. The fact that someone actually saw something (whatever it was) is more compelling than “experts” basing their verdicts purely on opinion.