Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Drones at Gatwick
Comments
-
Much appreciated, thanks for your helpFumbluff said:
No dramas, do remember that the whole M23 stretch from the M25 to shatwick is 50mph max though and is proper poops if you’re travelling at rush hourForeverAddickted said:
CheersFumbluff said:
To be honest the “smart motorway” roadworks nonsense will be far more of a delay than the Po-Po lip service if it’s even still there, I’ll keep an eye out for it laters...ForeverAddickted said:
Are these security checks still in place does anyone know?Fumbluff said:Laughable additional security driving into South Terminal this morning.
One lane shut so (another) traffic holdup as plod slowly walks across the road between each car, presumably checking we had no drones on the roof rack?
Dur, they were in the boot.
Seriously though, let’s hope it dies my get closed again until at least Thursday huh
If so is it just for the drop off / collection points or for getting into parking for those flying out as well?
My parents are off to Madeira on Friday so be ideal if I can let them know about any additional delays that mean they might want to leave for the Airport a little earlier than normal1 -
When I drove to Belgium before Christmas it was noticeable how much better their roads are than ours!0
-
Because by now Failing Grayling would have ensured some unattributable source in the media is briefed to leak it.blackpool72 said:
How do you know it wasn't terrorist related and we stopped it from happening.golfaddick said:Still no news then. Good job it wasn't ISIS or the IRA "messing around".......
That's why.
0 -
Heathrow departures suspended now.
Let the conspiracies re-commence...2 -
I thought they said they had technology to stop this now...0
-
RussiansChizz said:Heathrow departures suspended now.
Let the conspiracies re-commence...1 -
It’s almost funny0
-
Excitable 'witnesses"Baldybonce said:
RussiansChizz said:Heathrow departures suspended now.
Let the conspiracies re-commence...
0 -
This is really dull. People need to have their remote controls confiscated0
- Sponsored links:
-
I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
1 -
I mean it's funnier than the entire Xmas comedy schedules combined, for a startcafcfan1990 said:It’s almost funny
2 -
What is a conspiracy where you come from then?i_b_b_o_r_g said:I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
4 -
Is everyone else getting adverts for drones?0
-
Harvey’s Furniture0
-
Sorry, I thought a conspiracy theory were more outlandish than a simple theory?carly burn said:
What is a conspiracy where you come from then?i_b_b_o_r_g said:I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
0 -
It's one where the author provides no rational back up for his or her assertions. E.g. @nth london addick . he asserted, quite reasonably "there ain't no drone" but then went on to suggest that it was because some far more serious terrorist threat was actually being dealt with.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry, I thought a conspiracy theory were more outlandish than a simple theory?carly burn said:
What is a conspiracy where you come from then?i_b_b_o_r_g said:I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
0 -
So what's wrong with that?PragueAddick said:
It's one where the author provides no rational back up for his or her assertions. E.g. @nth london addick . he asserted, quite reasonably "there ain't no drone" but then went on to suggest that it was because some far more serious terrorist threat was actually being dealt with.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry, I thought a conspiracy theory were more outlandish than a simple theory?carly burn said:
What is a conspiracy where you come from then?i_b_b_o_r_g said:I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
1 -
Such an idea goes against all UK government practice in handling terrorist threats, especially at airports, where maximum visible force is displayed, (partly to "reassure" the public and "send a message to terrorists") and certainly would not fit with what happened when LGW was opened and then closed again. Under NLA's scenario the army elite would be in charge and they wouldn't make a cock-up like that, would they?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
So what's wrong with that?PragueAddick said:
It's one where the author provides no rational back up for his or her assertions. E.g. @nth london addick . he asserted, quite reasonably "there ain't no drone" but then went on to suggest that it was because some far more serious terrorist threat was actually being dealt with.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry, I thought a conspiracy theory were more outlandish than a simple theory?carly burn said:
What is a conspiracy where you come from then?i_b_b_o_r_g said:I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
0 -
I'm not saying I agree with his theory, I just can't see what's wrong with him posting it without others getting their knickers in a twistPragueAddick said:
Such an idea goes against all UK government practice in handling terrorist threats, especially at airports, where maximum visible force is displayed, (partly to "reassure" the public and "send a message to terrorists") and certainly would not fit with what happened when LGW was opened and then closed again. Under NLA's scenario the army elite would be in charge and they wouldn't make a cock-up like that, would they?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
So what's wrong with that?PragueAddick said:
It's one where the author provides no rational back up for his or her assertions. E.g. @nth london addick . he asserted, quite reasonably "there ain't no drone" but then went on to suggest that it was because some far more serious terrorist threat was actually being dealt with.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry, I thought a conspiracy theory were more outlandish than a simple theory?carly burn said:
What is a conspiracy where you come from then?i_b_b_o_r_g said:I didn't hear any conspiracies before, just people coming up with their own theories and trying to make heads or tails out of what was, a strange story.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Unfortunately I think drone technology available off the shelf can run for a couple of hours, be loads of km away for the pilot ( as use 4G signals).
Good luck with stopping that using conventional means.
If they genuinely use 4G rather than radio to control them then the only way I can think of would be a selective data jammer.
Pick up the drone, work out what signal it was being controlled by, jam the signal and try and trace the controller at the same time.
Doesn’t sound like the sort of equipment conventional police would run.0 -
SporadicAddick said:
less operational costs, aircraft in the wrong place that will eventually need to fly empty to reposition (zero revenue) , the need to accommodate and feed all passengers. This will be costing airlines a small fortune, which they wont recoup.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Airlines are also raking it in today, surely.ShootersHillGuru said:
I feel confident in saying that the British Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Services can muster more than one marksman in order to dot them around the Gatwick site.Chizz said:
It's quite difficult if you can't see it. I imagine it's difficult to keep track of a drone within a 674 hectare area of land. And, once it's spotted, you'd have to hope it didn't move by the time a police marksman arrived. I don't know much about drones, but one thing I do know is that they're very mobile.johnnybev1987 said:
Or just make sure people are inside and no aeroplanes airbourne and just shoot it down, doesn't seem very difficult. But admittedly i dont even understand why it has caused this much drama other than being a potential threatShootersHillGuru said:Police saying that shooting it down would just be too dangerous. I’m no expert and have to accept that explanation but it seems odd to me that a special or even not so special marksman with a suitable weapon ought to be able to shoot down a drone.
I’m sure someone with greater knowledge will be able to tell me I’m wrong.
There may be more than one. And if one is spotted and lost sight of, it's probably best to assume that it's still in the air somewhere. (Would you want to be the copper who tells air traffic control "we have lost sight of it, so you're probably ok to carry on flying. Hopefully it's not still up there and hopefully it won't bring down any planes"?)
Having given it thought I suspect that there is more to this delay in ridding the area of the drones.
My guess is that shooting them down would only rid this particular threat. By keeping them up in the air and trying to capture the perpetrators you reduce the risk of the terrorists just pitching up with new drones in a month or so.
No need to issue refunds and saving a fortune on fuel.
@Stu_of_Kunming Just to confirm that airlines didn't "rake it in"...Easy Jet stating that the two days of disruption cost it around £15 million.
"The repeated sightings of drones at the Sussex airport caused flights to be cancelled for nearly two days in December costing easyJet around £5 million from cancelled flights and lost revenue, plus another £10 million in “customer welfare” costs. The airline was forced to cancel more than 400 flights due to the drone disruption, which affected 82,000 of easyJet’s customers".1 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192232
All is now explained. It was Gavin Williamson testing for the possible future deployment of his drone ‘swarm squadrons’1 -
Had to be an insider because they knew what was going on on the runway...
The camera on the drone didn't give them a clue then?
1 -
The press articles were generated by BBC Panorama who covered it last night. 30 minutes of my life I won't get back. Told us basically sweet fa. It sort of points us more clearly towards the "bitter ex-employee" theory, but basically plod hasn't got a clue, and neither has Panorama. Panorama used to be good.2
-
If they used a drone they would get a much better panorama.PragueAddick said:The press articles were generated by BBC Panorama who covered it last night. 30 minutes of my life I won't get back. Told us basically sweet fa. It sort of points us more clearly towards the "bitter ex-employee" theory, but basically plod hasn't got a clue, and neither has Panorama. Panorama used to be good.1 -
The spokesman for Gatwick said that he had 100 trained staff who witnessed the drone. Surely, one or two of them would have had mobile phones to video it. Or, did I hear that wrongly? I’m beginning to believe there was no drone.0
-
From the link provided by Covered End above...thai malaysia addick said:The spokesman for Gatwick said that he had 100 trained staff who witnessed the drone. Surely, one or two of them would have had mobile phones to video it. Or, did I hear that wrongly? I’m beginning to believe there was no drone.Despite nearly 70 drone sightings reported in the space of a few hours, no photographic evidence exists that shows a drone above the airfield. This fuelled speculation that there may never have been one, but this was vehemently denied by the airport chief.Mr Woodroofe told the BBC that many of the drone sightings were by people he knew personally and trusted - "members of my team, people I have worked with for a decade, people who have worked for thirty years on the airfield, who fully understand the implications of reporting a drone sighting1 -
There was a drone, I can say that with certainty. As there was at Heathrow.
I'm also told that the upcoming horizon programme will be far better and far better informed regards the tech. No idea when it airs though.
I didn't watch panorama, as I had the in laws down. That bad?0
