Copenhagen airport closure due to reported drone activity

[JMartJr]

Except we have no evidence of Russian involvement outside of the earlier incursions in Poland and the Baltic states.
I'm going to post a good video analysis of the military situation in the Ukraine War thread.

There do not have to be any actual Russian drones for a panic about imagined Russian drones to spin out of control and widen the existing war, though. The panic is the problem, not the number of actual mystery drones.

 

[jarlrmai]

The panic isn't a problem if you think drones are problem (with some justification) but can't get budget for anti drone measures, then the panic is good...

You can see an ends justify the means approach here seeming acceptable to some.

 

[JMartJr]

The panic isn't a problem if you think drones are problem (with some justification) but can't get budget for anti drone measures, then the panic is good...

You can see an ends justify the means approach here seeming acceptable to some.

Yeah, I was more addressing the idea that the panic makes the war spreading more likely. There is no need for any actual drones for a BELIEF in them to have that effect, if enough people with hands on triggers start to believe it.

Fortunately, it looks as if The Authorities are perhaps catching on to what is really going on.

 

[jarlrmai]

Some in NATO believe that NATO's response to Russia in Ukraine needs to be amped up, so there's also political momentum for some to try and encourage more negative views of Russia as a threat.

My own views are probably that NATO EU should be doing more to assist Ukraine to defeat Russia with America currently a potentially unreliable ally.

But I still see it as the right thing to do to debunk a drone flap if it is just a flap.

What Russia makes of it is interesting, on the one hand your enemy is running around like headless chickens addressing a threat that is not even there, on the other if they think it's you then more pressure in Ukraine from NATO might be forthcoming, probably they are wondering if it will go full circle and the Danish will have to "apologise" to Russia and NATO will look foolish which might be a small tangible benefit to them.

 

[jarlrmai]

For Ukraine having to divert CUAS resources is probably not great during the war, but on the other hand it creates favours from NATO allies that can be called upon.

 

[JMartJr]

So now OY-CDT Kastrup, Denmark, had its final breakthrough in Danish media 15 days after the incident, there are some gems

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/krimi/2025-1...-til-lukning-af-luftrum-nu-afviser-lufthavnen

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/koebenhavns-lufthavn-er-sikker-vi-fangede-dronerne-paa-video

Some "no click" help would be appreciated here!

 

[ThomasH]

The final one - a little surprise - guess a plane

Source: https://youtu.be/7kH6U_ifpS8

 

[ThomasH]

Some "no click" help would be appreciated here!

The TV2 article is the best ever.
The words, graphics and conclusions sounds almost like from my videos, well...

 

[JMartJr]

The TV2 article is the best ever.
The words, graphics and conclusions sounds almost like from my videos, well...

Maybe -- either way, it probably needs to be copy-pasted over here where it can be read without clicking a link... it's kind of a rule!

 

[ThomasH]

Maybe -- either way, it probably needs to be copy-pasted over here where it can be read without clicking a link... it's kind of a rule!

I don't understand? There are lots of links all over, isn't there?
It's just a link to a news article.

 

[flarkey]

I don't understand? There are lots of links all over, isn't there?
It's just a link to a news article

It's a rule of the website that you shouldn't post a link to a source without quoting the relevant points of the article. It means that people don't have to read the whole thing or having to work out what you are referring to.

 

[JMartJr]

It's a rule of the website that you shouldn't post a link to a source without quoting the relevant points of the article. It means that people don't have to read the whole thing or having to work out what you are referring to.

So yeah, do provide the links, but also paste the part that you are wanting to share over here. (It is also good insurance against the link going down later!) ^_^

 

[FatPhil]

On a serious note is there a place for some sort of independent body to do, basically what we are doing here, in some ways Ryan Graves is right, UFO reports do affect the aviation industry and need to be taken more seriously.

And it seems the authorities are currently lacking.

UFO reports *being taken seriously* do affect the aviation industry, as we've seen.
Yes, there should be a hotline for randos to call, but that hotline should probably be manned by an AI that can file all reports in the cylindrical filing cabinet.
And then the aviation industry *wouldn't* be affected.
Problem solved.

Relevant authorites have technology that can detect bumblebees. Randos don't recognise a jumbo overhead. These information sources are not alike.

 

[Mendel]

https://www.msn.com/da-dk/nyheder/o...kumenterer-droner-over-lufthavnen/ar-AA1O1XNc

- Vores medarbejdere kan helt sikkert afgøre, om det var et fly, eller om det ikke var et fly. Det ved vi, at det ikke var, siger han til TV 2.

Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt siger til mediet, at den første observation af droneaktivitet ved lufthavnen mandag for 15 dage siden er registreret klokken 20.26.

Flere medier herunder DR har tidligere beskrevet, at et skolefly omkring det tidspunkt fløj ind over landingsbanen. Det skete ifølge DR omkring klokken 20.19.

TV 2 skriver, at det lille skolefly forlod lufthavnens område omkring klokken 20.20.

I et skriftligt svar til DR siger Lise Agerley Kürstein, som er kommunikationsdirektør i Københavns Lufthavn, at lufthavnens egen videoovervågning viser flyvende objekter.

Google translation:

- Our employees can definitely determine whether it was a plane or whether it was not a plane. We know that it wasn't, he tells TV 2.

Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt tells the media outlet that the first observation of drone activity at the airport on Monday, 15 days ago, was registered at 8:26 p.m.

Several media outlets, including DR, have previously described that a school plane flew over the runway around that time. According to DR, this happened at around 8:19 p.m. TV 2 writes that the small school plane left the airport area around 8:20 p.m.

In a written response to DR, Lise Agerley Kürstein, communications director at Copenhagen Airport, says that the airport's own video surveillance shows flying objects.

Took them long enough. There's no mention of the video being released, alas.

 

[Calter]

According to the TV2 article, the airport authorities seem to confirm that the initial reports were made by employees, they closed solely based on said reports, but they claim to have surveillance data that verifies the drones are real

"Our employees can definitely determine whether it was a plane or whether it was not a plane. We know that it was not, says the operations director.

He explains that the closure of the airport on the evening itself was based solely on observations from employees, but that the airport has since retrieved data from surveillance systems which, according to the director, document that there were drones over Copenhagen Airport.

What the data specifically shows, the director does not want to disclose.

...

According to Operations Director Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt, there have been several sightings of drones during the evening, and the airport's surveillance indicates that three to four drones have flown over the airport on several occasions.

The operations director refuses to go into detail about the observations and to share the documentation, and it has therefore not been possible for TV 2 to verify the claim.

It would be nice if they could provide a reason for not sharing said data (such as saying it's part of a police investigation or something), but it just seems to follow the all-too-common pattern of drone sightings where the government data that confirms their existence is just out of reach while all the data that isn't out of reach just happens to be misidentifications.

The article also mentions Robert Strauss, a former flight incident investigator and flight safety expert at Copenhagen Airport, who seems to also be skeptical of the existence of these drones, and of the claim that airport personnel can't misidentify planes.

For Robert Strauss, who worked for seven years as an incident investigator and flight safety expert at Copenhagen Airport, the time coincidence suggests that the plane may have been mistaken for a drone.


- It sounds crazy that it should be possible to confuse planes with drones over an airport. But usually, the staff at the airport see planes either landing or taking off. If there is such a small school plane chugging over the airport in the evening, then it deviates from the normal picture, he says.

...

However, the former incident investigator does not believe that it can be ruled out that there may still be a mix-up, where the first sightings have actually been of the training aircraft.

- Of course, there is a big difference between what the trained and untrained eye can see, but having said that, even for the trained eye, it is incredibly difficult to determine when you are standing on the ground on a dark evening, says Robert Strauss.

Karsten Marrup, head of the Center for Air and Space Operations at the Royal Danish Defence College, is also skeptical of human observations.


- I know from other contexts that planes and helicopters are often misunderstood as drones or UFOs, because it is so difficult to judge the distance of light in a black night sky, says Karsten Marrup.

Overall, it's a pretty nice article and I'm impressed with how in depth it went by providing detailed images of planes' flight paths to explain videos that have been spread around (since in my experience, the media doesn't put much effort in trying to debunk individual misidentifications that happen during these drone flaps)

 

[Trailblazer]

Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt tells the media outlet that the first observation of drone activity at the airport on Monday, 15 days ago, was registered at 8:26 p.m.

The observation was "registered" at 8:26? What does that mean? The object was seen at 8:26 or news of the sighting reached someone official at 8:26?

Given that the airport itself was apparently declared closed at 8:26, I would suggest the latter: would such an announcement really be made within less than 60 seconds of a sighting?

Unless the sighting was directly made by someone in a position to close the airport, then it seems likely it would take longer than that. And, from what we have previously heard, the initial drone was not seen by ATC (Naviair) themselves, but by an unspecified airport employee who then reported it to Naviair.

Note on closure timings: The last plane to land was LX1276 at 8:24pm. (The previous one, LG5435, landed about 80 seconds after OY-CDT cleared the centre line of the runway).

The next one due to land was SK652 which descended to 675ft on the final approach before aborting the landing at 8:28pm.

 

[ThomasH]

The observation was "registered" at 8:26? What does that mean? The object was seen at 8:26 or news of the sighting reached someone official at 8:26?

Given that the airport itself was apparently declared closed at 8:26, I would suggest the latter: would such an announcement really be made within less than 60 seconds of a sighting?

Unless the sighting was directly made by someone in a position to close the airport, then it seems likely it would take longer than that. And, from what we have previously heard, the initial drone was not seen by ATC (Naviair) themselves, but by an unspecified airport employee who then reported it to Naviair.

Note on closure timings: The last plane to land was LX1276 at 8:24pm. (The previous one, LG5435, landed about 80 seconds after OY-CDT cleared the centre line of the runway).

The next one due to land was SK652 which descended to 675ft on the final approach before aborting the landing at 8:28pm.

I think I saw 8:26 on the day somewhere, but couldn't find it again. After there I only read 8:30.
The plane that aborted landing was 8:29:08, so I don't believe they already knew it 8:26.

But anyway I find a response time of 10 minutes plausible, from a man misidentifying a plane 8:19, to he finds a phone number to call, to NaviAir investigating and maybe get's a second call to finally deside to shut down.

 

[ThomasH]

According to the TV2 article, the airport authorities seem to confirm that the initial reports were made by employees, they closed solely based on said reports, but they claim to have surveillance data that verifies the drones are real

"Our employees can definitely determine whether it was a plane or whether it was not a plane. We know that it was not, says the operations director.

He explains that the closure of the airport on the evening itself was based solely on observations from employees, but that the airport has since retrieved data from surveillance systems which, according to the director, document that there were drones over Copenhagen Airport.

What the data specifically shows, the director does not want to disclose.

...

According to Operations Director Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt, there have been several sightings of drones during the evening, and the airport's surveillance indicates that three to four drones have flown over the airport on several occasions.

The operations director refuses to go into detail about the observations and to share the documentation, and it has therefore not been possible for TV 2 to verify the claim.

It would be nice if they could provide a reason for not sharing said data (such as saying it's part of a police investigation or something), but it just seems to follow the all-too-common pattern of drone sightings where the government data that confirms their existence is just out of reach while all the data that isn't out of reach just happens to be misidentifications.

The article also mentions Robert Strauss, a former flight incident investigator and flight safety expert at Copenhagen Airport, who seems to also be skeptical of the existence of these drones, and of the claim that airport personnel can't misidentify planes.

For Robert Strauss, who worked for seven years as an incident investigator and flight safety expert at Copenhagen Airport, the time coincidence suggests that the plane may have been mistaken for a drone.


- It sounds crazy that it should be possible to confuse planes with drones over an airport. But usually, the staff at the airport see planes either landing or taking off. If there is such a small school plane chugging over the airport in the evening, then it deviates from the normal picture, he says.

...

However, the former incident investigator does not believe that it can be ruled out that there may still be a mix-up, where the first sightings have actually been of the training aircraft.

- Of course, there is a big difference between what the trained and untrained eye can see, but having said that, even for the trained eye, it is incredibly difficult to determine when you are standing on the ground on a dark evening, says Robert Strauss.

Karsten Marrup, head of the Center for Air and Space Operations at the Royal Danish Defence College, is also skeptical of human observations.


- I know from other contexts that planes and helicopters are often misunderstood as drones or UFOs, because it is so difficult to judge the distance of light in a black night sky, says Karsten Marrup.

Overall, it's a pretty nice article and I'm impressed with how in depth it went by providing detailed images of planes' flight paths to explain videos that have been spread around (since in my experience, the media doesn't put much effort in trying to debunk individual misidentifications that happen during these drone flaps)

Yes very good article. I contacted one of the journalists and asked if they had seen my videos, he said it was all their own investigation but had seen them now and was very impressed with what I/we found out.
Good to know we got to the same conclusions then

I also like they're honest about there two videos, and it makes sense I thought the aspect ratio was a bit off, when they filmed them from an iphone on another iphone. Maybe some of the shaking is not even on the original, and that's why something didn't match.

 

[Mendel]

I think I saw 8:26 on the day somewhere, but couldn't find it again

FR24 reported it, it's in post #1 of this thread

 

[Godfred Juhl]

TV 2 is in possession of an incident report from the Swedish police. Here, the officer on duty at the southern Swedish security center describes what information the Swedes received from Denmark while their Danish colleagues were hunting drones that evening.

The report states, among other things, that the police in Denmark informed the Swedes that these were large drones that were at an altitude of around 120 meters.

The information is interesting in connection with the training plane, as it was at an altitude of 105 and 122 meters, respectively, the two times it passed the airport control tower during the overflight.

The Swedish report further describes that the observed object in the air had initially been mistaken for an aircraft.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I was looking into the translation of these sentences which use the term "et fly". My sense overall is that this typically is used to specifically mean "an airplane", not simply "aircraft", which would technically include drones and gliders and helicopters, and potentially blimps and hot air balloons or whatever else. Translation tools are giving some inconsistent results, except for in the last passage where they seem to all agree "et fly" means "an airplane".

I den svenske rapport beskrives det videre, at det observerede objekt i luften i første omgang var blevet forvekslet med et fly.
-> (Google Translate)
The Swedish report further describes that the object observed in the air was initially mistaken for an aircraft.
-> (DeepL)
The Swedish report further describes that the observed object in the air was initially mistaken for an aircraft.
-> (ChatGPT 5)
In the Swedish report, it is further described that the observed object in the air was initially mistaken for an airplane.
-> (Claude Sonnet 4.5)
The Swedish report further describes that the observed object in the air had initially been mistaken for an aircraft.

Hvis du er ansat herude og færdes rundt i lufthavnen som dit faste job, så kan du se, hvad der er et fly, og hvad der ikke er et fly, siger han.
-> (Google Translate)
If you are employed out here and travel around the airport as your regular job, you can see what is an airplane and what is not an airplane, he says.
-> (DeepL)
If you work here and spend your time at the airport as part of your regular job, you can tell what is an airplane and what is not, he says.
-> (ChatGPT 5)
If you are employed out here and move around the airport as your regular job, then you can see what is an aircraft and what is not an aircraft, he says.
-> (Claude Sonnet 4.5)
If you are employed out here and move around the airport as your regular job, then you can see what is a plane and what is not a plane, he says.

Hvis det ligner et fly eller en helikopter, og det flyver som et fly eller en helikopter, så er sandsynligheden størst for, at det nok også er et fly eller en helikopter.
-> (Google Translate)
If it looks like a plane or a helicopter, and it flies like a plane or a helicopter, then the probability is highest that it is also a plane or a helicopter.
-> (DeepL)
If it looks like an airplane or a helicopter and flies like an airplane or a helicopter, then it is most likely that it is an airplane or a helicopter.
-> (ChatGPT 5)
If it looks like a plane or a helicopter, and it flies like a plane or a helicopter, then the most likely thing is that it's probably also a plane or a helicopter.
-> (Claude Sonnet 4.5)
If it looks like a plane or a helicopter, and it flies like a plane or a helicopter, then the probability is greatest that it probably is a plane or a helicopter.

 

[TinFoilHat]

https://dosequotidienne.ca/2025/10/...e-quand-des-drones-encerclent-lusine-secrete/

Belgium has deployed radars, jammers, and optical sensors around sensitive sites. Despite this, no drones have been shot down since the series of intrusions began. Interceptions are deemed too risky: a drone falling on a road, a school garden, a hospital... The Ministries of the Interior and Defense are floundering in the face of legal complexity.


Since early October 2025, a ballet of unidentified drones has been circling night after night above the top-secret Thales Belgium factory in Évegnée Fort, in the province of Liège. This sensitive facility, authorized to assemble and store explosives for 70 mm rockets, finds itself caught in a vice by silent and stealthy aircraft. Thales management is sounding the alarm and demanding clear rules for jamming or shooting down these aerial intruders. The specter of a hybrid threat looms over Europe and calls into question our ability to protect our defense production lines.

The silence of the night broken
Near the site, radars detect white silhouettes slicing through the air at low altitude. Without emitting frost, without warning, these drones approach as close as possible to the hangars where strategic munitions are stored. "I've never seen anything like this," confides a Thales technician, terrified by this systematic intrusion. Since October 3, the suspicious flights have been repeated, up to fifteen per night.

A factory under high surveillance
Classified as "secret," the Évegnée Fort complex benefits from sophisticated detection systems. However, the signals emitted by these drones seem to bypass the installed jammers. Each alert triggers the activation of automatic production suspensions and puts security teams on alert, putting them under constant stress. "We know how to locate them, but we can't always neutralize them," admits a Thales executive.

The regulatory trap
Alain Quevrin, country director of Thales Belgium, laments the lack of a legal framework for effective intervention. "We can jam the controls, we could shoot at them, but the law doesn't allow us to do so," he explains with exasperation. The dilemma is cruel: neutralizing an unidentified drone risks causing debris to fall on civilians or vital infrastructure.

 

[Godfred Juhl]

I was looking into the translation of these sentences which use the term "et fly". My sense overall is that this typically is used to specifically mean "an airplane", not simply "aircraft", which would technically include drones and gliders and helicopters, and potentially blimps and hot air balloons or whatever else. Translation tools are giving some inconsistent results, except for in the last passage where they seem to all agree "et fly" means "an airplane".

I den svenske rapport beskrives det videre, at det observerede objekt i luften i første omgang var blevet forvekslet med et fly.
-> (Google Translate)
The Swedish report further describes that the object observed in the air was initially mistaken for an aircraft.
-> (DeepL)
The Swedish report further describes that the observed object in the air was initially mistaken for an aircraft.
-> (ChatGPT 5)
In the Swedish report, it is further described that the observed object in the air was initially mistaken for an airplane.
-> (Claude Sonnet 4.5)
The Swedish report further describes that the observed object in the air had initially been mistaken for an aircraft.

Hvis du er ansat herude og færdes rundt i lufthavnen som dit faste job, så kan du se, hvad der er et fly, og hvad der ikke er et fly, siger han.
-> (Google Translate)
If you are employed out here and travel around the airport as your regular job, you can see what is an airplane and what is not an airplane, he says.
-> (DeepL)
If you work here and spend your time at the airport as part of your regular job, you can tell what is an airplane and what is not, he says.
-> (ChatGPT 5)
If you are employed out here and move around the airport as your regular job, then you can see what is an aircraft and what is not an aircraft, he says.
-> (Claude Sonnet 4.5)
If you are employed out here and move around the airport as your regular job, then you can see what is a plane and what is not a plane, he says.

Hvis det ligner et fly eller en helikopter, og det flyver som et fly eller en helikopter, så er sandsynligheden størst for, at det nok også er et fly eller en helikopter.
-> (Google Translate)
If it looks like a plane or a helicopter, and it flies like a plane or a helicopter, then the probability is highest that it is also a plane or a helicopter.
-> (DeepL)
If it looks like an airplane or a helicopter and flies like an airplane or a helicopter, then it is most likely that it is an airplane or a helicopter.
-> (ChatGPT 5)
If it looks like a plane or a helicopter, and it flies like a plane or a helicopter, then the most likely thing is that it's probably also a plane or a helicopter.
-> (Claude Sonnet 4.5)
If it looks like a plane or a helicopter, and it flies like a plane or a helicopter, then the probability is greatest that it probably is a plane or a helicopter.

"Fly" is a Danish word stolen from the Norwegians in the year 1925.

DA=Fly > Flyver > Flyvemaskine
EN=Plane > Flying > (Flyve)machine

"Flyver" can be "something that flies" a bird, beer bottle Saturday night, present tense, verb. It can also be "(a) en flyver (plane)" - "et fly", singular of plane, plural "flyvere".

All three are used equally often, an "fly/plane" would always be used by a Dane to describe an aeroplane, pilot-controlled, fixed wings and an engine(and the exception - glider/svævefly) like passagerfly, transportfly, militærfly etc.

 

[TinFoilHat]

"Fly" is a Danish word stolen from the Norwegians in the year 1925.

DA=Fly > Flyver > Flyvemaskine
EN=Plane > Flying > (Flyve)machine

"Flyver" can be "something that flies" a bird, beer bottle Saturday night, present tense, verb. It can also be "(a) en flyver (plane)" - "et fly", singular of plane, plural "flyvere".

All three are used equally often, an "fly/plane" would always be used by a Dane to describe an aeroplane, pilot-controlled, fixed wings and an engine(and the exception - glider/svævefly) like passagerfly, transportfly, militærfly etc.

The context of this article is drones, not airplanes. They have equipment to detect drones and that equipment has detected drones multiple times on multiple days, per the article.

We finally have someone using actual drone detection equipment and not just their eye sight.

 

[Godfred Juhl]

The context of this article is drones, not airplanes. They have equipment to detect drones and that equipment has detected drones multiple times on multiple days, per the article.

We finally have someone using actual drone detection equipment and not just their eye sight.

I answered Kyle's question about how Danes use/perceive the word "fly/plane". It is correct that the background is drones, but the article in question is mostly about a specific aircraft, OY-CDT. The last few days the wording of politicians and authorities has been different, there is a certain agreement about drone sightings in Denmark, every word is weighed carefully now, you can't get anyone to answer whether the drones are controlled by Danish authorities or hostile actors.

On the first night at Copenhagen Airport, we know from the very first press conference held by the police at 2 am that the authorities had more in the air than a helicopter, they wouldn't say what they had in the air, how much they had in the air and who had what in the air. There were at least 4 authorities with drone capabilities at the airport that night, the police, the police intelligence service, the police action force, the defense/military and I wonder if the defense intelligence service was also there. The airport covers a large area.

There were/are also countless military exercises and maneuvers in the region/Northern Europe, one of which is publicly known in connection with drones "Helicopters, drones and planes in the air tonight - police commissioner explains why", could it be that Copenhagen Airport is a real-time community exercise, Joint Expeditionary Force - style, TARASSIS "The exercise is designed around real challenges, including protecting an airfield, patrolling a shipping lane and reinforcing a JEF nation.""TARASSIS activities are designed around scenarios that reflect real-world challenges in different domains. These events will be used to rehearse a series of prepared response options that can be quickly activated to deliver effects such as protecting an airfield, patrolling a sea lane or reinforcing a JEF nation."
Exercises and maneuvers in the region at that time: TARASSIS - Operation Eastern Sentry - Nordic Pine 2025 - Cobra Warrior - Ex EASTERN SEA - Ex FOREST GUARDIAN / AUSTERE SHIELD - Red Storm Bravo - Grand Eagle 2025 - NAMEJS - Ex PROTECTIVE FENCE.

 

[TinFoilHat]

"Without emitting frost, without warning, these drones approach as close as possible to the hangars where strategic munitions are stored"

This isn't airplanes. I don't think this is a military exercise either. These are unknown drones.

 

[JMartJr]

"Without emitting frost, without warning, these drones approach as close as possible to the hangars where strategic munitions are stored"

This isn't airplanes. I don't think this is a military exercise either. These are unknown drones.

Based on what? The lack of warning? The lack of frost? I'm not seeing what is leading you to this conclusion.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

https://dosequotidienne.ca/2025/10/...e-quand-des-drones-encerclent-lusine-secrete/

Belgium has deployed radars, jammers, and optical sensors around sensitive sites. Despite this, no drones have been shot down since the series of intrusions began. Interceptions are deemed too risky: a drone falling on a road, a school garden, a hospital... The Ministries of the Interior and Defense are floundering in the face of legal complexity.

Since early October 2025, a ballet of unidentified drones has been circling night after night above the top-secret Thales Belgium factory in Évegnée Fort, in the province of Liège. [...]

The silence of the night broken
Near the site, radars detect white silhouettes slicing through the air at low altitude. Without emitting frost, without warning, these drones approach as close as possible to the hangars where strategic munitions are stored. "I've never seen anything like this," confides a Thales technician, terrified by this systematic intrusion. Since October 3, the suspicious flights have been repeated, up to fifteen per night.

A factory under high surveillance
Classified as "secret," the Évegnée Fort complex benefits from sophisticated detection systems. However, the signals emitted by these drones seem to bypass the installed jammers. Each alert triggers the activation of automatic production suspensions and puts security teams on alert, putting them under constant stress. "We know how to locate them, but we can't always neutralize them," admits a Thales executive.
[...]

Everything after "Since early October" here is a quotation from the article. Use the "external quote" feature in the editor to indicate this.

Full translation:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68e6e49e-8a60-8005-abf5-ad8f4d4d0a49

I think if a highly monitored weapons manufacturing company site is being illegally flown over by up to 15 drones every night for 5 days in a row (and counting), and those drones are flying extremely close to buildings in that restricted airspace, there should be some good evidence for this, and more response than quotes from the company given to the press. The factor of counter-drone systems (like signal jammers) not working on alleged drones is a recurring part of these stories, and without reason to rule out misidentification, it's possible the attempt to use the counter-drone technology on a drone they were looking at did not work because it was not a drone they were looking at.

Also I genuinely don't know how to interpret these two sentences:

Near the site, radars detect white silhouettes slicing through the air at low altitude.
Without emitting frost, without warning, these drones approach as close as possible to the hangars where strategic munitions are stored.

White because that's how the display shows them? I don't know of a radar system that can tell you the object's color. And what kind of low altitude does this mean? 5 meters? 500 meters? 500 meters could be considered "low altitude " for a plane.
Frost? At low altitude in early October? Why would it be expected for a drone to be emitting frost? Is it talking about combustion-powered fixed-wing drones? Contrails? Are these translation issues?
Also what kind of radar detects color? And what does "as close as possible" mean? Surely the system would have range information telling you how close. What are we talking about here? 100 meters? 1 meter? 1000 meters?

Here are two English language articles on it which make no mention of radar or distances or frost:
https://www.politico.eu/article/top-eu-weapons-firm-warns-drone-threat-production-lines/
https://www.newsweek.com/nato-weapons-drones-top-secret-factories-ukraine-war-10844936

The Newsweek article seems to just be rehash of the Politico one.

The Politico article says:

The French multinational has mounted a "huge effort" to install detection systems across its facilities, he explained. The company said it could use jammers to block the signal needed to control the drones and bring them down. But the problem is that "we are not allowed — legally," Quevrin said. One concern with bringing down drones is that they can cause damage or injure people if they fall.

Which suggests that Thales did not attempt to use jammers, because they are not permitted to. So why does the dosequotidienne.ca article say "the signals emitted by these drones seem to bypass the installed jammers".

I can't find any official source of what Quevrin, the Thales company executive, said, or a full quote of what they said. It is interesting that this is coming from a company which sells drone detection and countermeasure systems. I guess we will see if Thales gets government approval to start attempting to down drones they see near their facilities in Belgium.

 

[Trailblazer]

The plane that aborted landing was 8:29:08, so I don't believe they already knew it 8:26.

Looking at the detailed track log for SK652, the lowest point on the approach was at 8:28:36 when it reached 675ft. At 8:28:44 it was climbing again and at 750ft.

LX1276, the last plane to land, touched down at about 8:24:53.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Based on what? The lack of warning? The lack of frost? I'm not seeing what is leading you to this conclusion.

I don't have any reason to think these are misidentifed airplanes. So the only logical conclusion based on this article is that these are drones.

I have no reason to think these are military exercises practicing with drones. I am not seeing what is leading you think otherwise.

 

[JMartJr]

I don't have any reason to think these are misidentifed airplanes. So the only logical conclusion based on this article is that these are drones.

All of the cases in this thread where drones are shown to be misidentified planes gives me reason to believe that planes are being misidentified as drones. (Planes/drones is a bit of a false dichotomy, though, some of them seem to have been stars, for example. It is also worth noting that the only ones proven to be drones were normal small hobbyist quadcopters type dones -- technically drones, so there ARE some drones involved. But there is no evidence available that indicates any of them are Russian military drones or otherwise something unusual.

I have no reason to think these are military exercises practicing with drones.

I also have seen no reason to believe that. So we're together for one point at least! ^_^

 

[Mendel]

Typically, the threat from detectable drones is countered by tracking the drone back to its operator, and then having them arrested. We've seen this in the news in various countries, when airports do it, and Thales should probably be able to do that, too, right?

Also, I'd like to ask the same question: is it actually illegal to fly a drone near or across the Thales factory?

 

[jarlrmai]

It is also worth noting that the only ones proven to be drones were normal small hobbyist quadcopters type dones

I must have missed this?

 

[TinFoilHat]

Typically, the threat from detectable drones is countered by tracking the drone back to its operator, and then having them arrested. We've seen this in the news in various countries, when airports do it, and Thales should probably be able to do that, too, right?

Also, I'd like to ask the same question: is it actually illegal to fly a drone near or across the Thales fa

Typically, the threat from detectable drones is countered by tracking the drone back to its operator, and then having them arrested. We've seen this in the news in various countries, when airports do it, and Thales should probably be able to do that, too, right?

Also, I'd like to ask the same question: is it actually illegal to fly a drone near or across the Thales factory?

Civilian drones give the operators location, military drones have this feature turned off. It's called Remote ID and this feature is a requirement in EU for drones.

This gives more credence that the drones detected with drone detection hardware are not civilian operated drones and instead are military operated drones.

 

[jarlrmai]

Civilian drones give the operators location, military drones have this feature turned off. It's called Remote ID and this feature is a requirement in EU for drones.

This gives more credence that the drones detected with drone detection hardware are not civilian operated drones and instead are military operated drones.

Why do they have lights on then?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

According to the TV2 article, the airport authorities seem to confirm that the initial reports were made by employees, they closed solely based on said reports, but they claim to have surveillance data that verifies the drones are real

"Our employees can definitely determine whether it was a plane or whether it was not a plane. We know that it was not, says the operations director.

The "employees" who reported the sighting are airport staff, but it is not clear whether they are in roles with special aviation expertise. The only description of their job title comes from this...

However, the coincidence in flight altitude does not cause Copenhagen Airport's operations director, Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt, to waver on the credibility of the employees' observations.


- If you are employed out here and travel around the airport as your regular job, you can see what is an airplane and what is not an airplane, he says.

They "travel around the airport." They could be luggage handlers or security guards, or any number of other employees.

This statement ...

If you are employed out here and travel around the airport as your regular job, you can see what is an airplane

... is is not supported by what we know from decades of history.

For decades we've been getting eyewitness reports describing stars as flying saucers.


The old argument from UFOlogists goes something like this:

These witnesses are adults (and solid citizens) who have been living under the sky all their life. They would know what a star looks like. Therefore this UFO could not have been a star. Checkmate, Mr. Smartypants Skeptic.


The statement from Copenhagen Airport's operations director, Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt is just another variation of this argument.

Restated: It's just common sense that solid citizens who live under the sky have been looking at the sky and have been observing objects in the sky. Therefore they have long experience and would recognize objects commonly present in the sky.

But here's where this "common sense" argument breaks down. We know that many people don't recognize stars when they see them. Proving that they haven't been looking at the sky over decades of life.

My claim is that these employees have been working at an airport but have never been particularly motivated to look at the sky. Something made them look up on this particular night... and they didn't recognize what they were seeing. Sky Shock.

My supporting evidence comes from the long history of exactly this kind of behavior documented in skeptical UFO literature.


What this kind of thing really proves is that people are shockingly oblivious, incurious and unobservant.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Let's look at the individuals who are publicly rejecting the explanation that a school aircraft caused the airspace closure.

They are senior administrators at Copenhagen Airport. Kristoffer Plenge-Brandt, the airport's Operations Director (driftsdirektør), and Lise Agerley Kürstein, the Communications Director (kommunikationsdirektør).

Their positions give them access to and working knowledge of the airport's monitoring systems, including radar and video surveillance, which they say clearly indicate the presence of drones rather than a training aircraft.

They have authority over operational and communications matters...

So far, there is no evidence that either holds a background in piloting, flight instruction, or other front-line aviation roles. Their expertise appears to be in administrative oversight and interpretation of operational data rather than direct field experience with small aircraft such as school planes.

I'm pretty sure that neither one of them has a background in the psychology of human perception, eyewitness testimony, or has read Allen Hendry's The UFO Handbook.

My claim is that they are completely naïve when it comes to this kind of thing.

 

[jarlrmai]

The assumption is that these people are relaying the words of the people inside that know but have no public role, this is how it should be, but it often isn't. Anyone who has worked at a largish organisation with a public aspect will have been involved in this kind of thing, there is misunderstanding, over-simplification 'games of telephone' and also omission / spinning of events to manage public perception.

 

[jarlrmai]

Don't fly your Cessna low over any German airports..

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/germany/germany-police-shoot-down-drones-rcna236341

Germany will grant police the power to shoot down rogue drones like those that have disrupted airports across Europe and that some European leaders have attributed to a hybrid war being waged by Russia.

 

[Mendel]

Don't fly your Cessna low over any German airpor

you should not fly low over any controlled airport without a clearance from air traffic control

if people shoot at things without coordination with ATC, we get tragedies like Teheran and Grozny/Aktau.