Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow • Hacker News Board

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#51

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #46

gok wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if LHR decides to let airplanes fly anyway, they'll stop flying the drones?

Or continue flying them in places where it's forbidden, but planes don't go. Which is not 100% without risk and would leave little time to react if they'd leave them (which is why flying there is forbidden), but very far from "intentionally flying a drone into a plane".

In particular, I strongly suspect that Heathrow has zones which, while not directly in the flight path, are still "too close" and will therefore cause them to stop operating airplanes.

As you say, that's not 100% without risk. It's an erosion of the safety margin, and safety margins are there for a reason.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#52

Post by inflatableDodo » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #3

Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.

Being private doesn't stop something being key national infrastructure. The UK's nuclear deterrent facilities are all farmed out to Babcock, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_International and it would be hard to argue that isn't key national infrastructure. The UK just owns very little of its national infrastructure.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#53

Post by exabrial » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:08 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #4

exabrial wrote: post #2

That's a funny way to spell terrorists.

There's a difference between trying to destroy ships or blow up power plants and shutting down an airport. Still not great, probably worth heavy fines and some jail time, but not exactly terrorism under the common definition.

My apologies for implying that _directly threatening_ the lives of 200+ people does not qualify as a terrorist act.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#54

Post by zmmmmm » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:23 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #17

zmmmmm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hyperbole to suggest that risk exists when the protestors are telling everyone the exact date, time and location they will fly the drones. If the airport still chooses to fly airplanes during that time and people still choose to get on them, then I think you can't say the risk was introduced by the protestors. Which is not to say I agree or disagree with the protestors, but please don't dilute the meaning of ter…

The Provisional IRA did the same thing with bombings, and they were definitely terrorists. Not that I think these people are terrorists, but "telling everyone ahead of time" isn't an inoculation.

I know this is a "slippery slope" type argument, but if you are going equate "mild inconvenience of your flight delayed" with death and destruction, you are opening up a huge invitation for authorities to apply some pretty frightening laws to anybody who wants to protest about something. Protests have traditionally obstructed traffic or caused other inconvenience and often when notified in advance the police even help them by directing traffic or doing crowd control etc. This isn't that much different and in some ways is better because aviation is actually one of the huge unsolvable contributors to climate change, so this protest is highly targeted to the people who are contributing to that.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#55

Post by henryfjordan » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

gok wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are most certainly terrorists. How is "I'm going to blow up an airplane unless you don't fly it" different from "I'm going to fly a robot into an airplane, potentially causing loss of life unless you don't fly it"? How about "I'm going to aim blinding lasers at pilot flying a plane unless you don't fly the plane?"

"With advance warning, I'm going to fly a robot into an area where your rules will require you to not fly airplanes into the airport" is quite a bit weaker (note the absence of any actual threat to the airplanes).

How is that any different from calling in a fake bomb threat?

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#56

Post by mort96 » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:45 PM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #38

perfunctory wrote: post #3

Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.

Um, yes, this is a nominally capitalist nation. In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt. In a capitalist society, not only the means of production but many critical national infrastructure structures and services can be owned and run privately. E.g., power & telecom companies are regulated mono…

> In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt.

While the gist of your point is correct, I feel I should mention that socialism or communism doesn't necessitate that the means of production is nationalized and government owned. The means of production could just as well be owned by the workers, not the government.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#57

Post by briandear » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:45 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #3

Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.

National infrastructure doesn’t necessarily mean government owned. The air traffic control system is also 51% private in Europe, but that’s still (inter)national infrastructure.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#58

Post by mort96 » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:48 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #55

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"With advance warning, I'm going to fly a robot into an area where your rules will require you to not fly airplanes into the airport" is quite a bit weaker (note the absence of any actual threat to the airplanes).

How is that any different from calling in a fake bomb threat?

I suppose a bomb is a threat whether the plane flies or not, while a drone is only a threat if the airport decides to fly planes despite knowing there are drones in the area.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#59

Post by briandear » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

teachrdan wrote: post #23

gok wrote: post #15

If the goal is simply to disrupt air travel, why not just call in a bomb threat?

Because they're not terrorists. Terrorists use violence (and credible threats of violence) against civilians to achieve political ends. Instead, the activists here are disrupting air traffic using nonviolent means.

That’s ridiculous. It’s disrupting air travel, no different than cutting the power to air traffic control. Protesters do not have a right to infringe on the rights of others to make their case. They can hold up signs outside the airport, but they have no right to put aircraft at risk. That is extremism.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#60

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 11:58 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #55

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"With advance warning, I'm going to fly a robot into an area where your rules will require you to not fly airplanes into the airport" is quite a bit weaker (note the absence of any actual threat to the airplanes).

How is that any different from calling in a fake bomb threat?

It's different from "I'm going to fly a robot into an airplane". My point is that gok's summary of this threat is rather off the mark. As for gok's analogy to a bomb threat... enough has probably already been said about that.