London Gatwick Airport: Drones ground flights [BBC News]

[Brian Drysdale]

The net result appears to be a tightening of the regulations,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46787730

[Gary Huff]

Fun, they don't know who it was, the don't know exactly what kind of drone it was, they may never find out, and it may have not been a drone until people started seeing police drones.

This will totally solve the issue! /s

[Brian Dollemore]

Now Heathrow ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713

[Gary Huff]

Of course, people are now looking for drones at airports. Anything they see in the sky, the might report as a drone. I've had people point out drones to me there were actually airplanes.

Until there is any evidence of any drone other than someone saying "I think I saw a drone!" I remain skeptical. There is precedence for this. Remember the killer clowns scare?

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Of course, people are now looking for drones at airports. Anything they see in the sky, the might report as a drone. I've had people point out drones to me there were actually airplanes.

Until there is any evidence of any drone other than someone saying "I think I saw a drone!" I remain skeptical. There is precedence for this. Remember the killer clowns scare?

There have been plenty of instances described both here and elsewhere about irresponsible behaviour by drone fliers. It comes as no surprise that the authorities are about to seriously clamp down on their acquisition, operation and ultimately competence/attitudes of their operators. When that happens, - possibly here in the UK first, there will be a ripple effect across the world as other authorities take similar steps, and those who do use their drones responsibly will be the ones that take the hit. The idiots will move on to find the next antisocial pastime. Casting aspersions of those reporting them doesn't help. The alternative is to wait until an aircraft is brought down, I'd rather something was done before that. The world got by without uncontrolled drone flying for thousands of years.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Steve Game

There have been plenty of instances described both here and elsewhere about irresponsible behaviour by drone fliers.

You're absolutely right, Steve, and you know how they differ? They found both the drones and the pilots responsible in those instances. So far, there is nothing here save for people's word that they "saw something".

Casting aspersions of those reporting them doesn't help.

Being wrong about seeing a drone doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you wrong about having thought you saw a drone.

The alternative is to wait until an aircraft is brought down, I'd rather something was done before that. The world got by without uncontrolled drone flying for thousands of years.

The world got by without automobiles and airplanes for thousands of years as well, and the risk of being in either of them is far greater than any risk a DJI drone poses.

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

You're absolutely right, Steve, and you know how they differ? They found both the drones and the pilots responsible in those instances. So far, there is nothing here save for people's word that they "saw something".

So the police should ignore any potential sightings?

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Being wrong about seeing a drone doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you wrong about having thought you saw a drone.

Only if there wasn't a drone. Nobody has confirmed that there wasn't one.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

The world got by without automobiles and airplanes for thousands of years as well, and the risk of being in either of them is far greater than any risk a DJI drone poses.

Maybe not true and we don't really want to find out with a catastrophy if that risk is significant. Nobody has said that it was (or wasn't) a DJI drone, but of course the media rushed to their photo libraries to get a picture of a DJI Phantom. Given the distance that the public might have seen a drone from at Gatwick, to be near the runways it would need to be a lot bigger than a small prosumer product. If one was launched with malicious intentions, it is possible that it would be much larger and possibly home-made.
Personally, even if I was due to fly at that time, I would rather that appropriate precautions were taken. Don't forget, a lot of people were inconvenienced but nobody was killed or injured throughout the event.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Steve Game

So the police should ignore any potential sightings?

Where did I give that idea. The police investigate all kinds of bullshit all the time. This is no difference. But you don't start passing laws making clown costumes illegal.

Only if there wasn't a drone. Nobody has confirmed that there wasn't one.

You seem to be pretty ignorant of the idea that one cannot prove a negative. If you think you can, then confirm that I cannot, in actuality, take off and fly like Superman. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Maybe not true and we don't really want to find out with a catastrophy

There won't be a catastrophe. A DJI drone, especially a Mavic or a Phantom, pose less risk than birds. And yet you'll board an airplane knowing there are birds about all the time. In fact, birds hit planes nearly every day, and since 1988, 200 people have been killed in plane incidents involving birds. I'd put that up against "killed by drone incidents" any day of the week.

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Where did I give that idea. The police investigate all kinds of bullshit all the time. This is no difference. But you don't start passing laws making clown costumes illegal.

The police investigate all plausible reports. If a possible outcome of the reported situation is a risk to human safety (or less importantly property) the police take steps to minimise or remove that risk until they are satisfied it is safe to relax the measures. If the risk is a localised one (in this case to the environs of a passenger airport) then it is perfectly reasonable to restrict or ban that activity for as long as it is deemed necessary. Not sure why you are banging on about clowns costumes for but here we are talking about drones. The only connection here is that drones are generally non-essential flying objects with the possible exception of use by the emergecy services and certain responsible bodies e.g. surveying. Maybe the attitude to idiots demanding the right to fly toys around for pleasure having a higher priority than safety of the general public is the norm where you are but not here, - apart from the few idiots who want to do it here but they aren't stupid anough to make a fuss.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

You seem to be pretty ignorant of the idea that one cannot prove a negative. If you think you can, then confirm that I cannot, in actuality, take off and fly like Superman. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Nobody here can prove that a drone was there, so by your reckoning, if anybody sees something serious they'd better not report it if they don't have the evidence set in stone. Luckily, the police don't put that sort of interpretation on event her otherwise it would be a paradise for anybody who wanted to do dangerous things where they could leave little or no evidence.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

There won't be a catastrophe. A DJI drone, especially a Mavic or a Phantom, pose less risk than birds. And yet you'll board an airplane knowing there are birds about all the time. In fact, birds hit planes nearly every day, and since 1988, 200 people have been killed in plane incidents involving birds. I'd put that up against "killed by drone incidents" any day of the week.

You seem to be hung up on 'drones' meaning toys like Phantoms or even Mavics. You also seem to be assuming the role of an expert on object hitting planes in flight. Maybe the news coverage of the events here didn't reach you, (or maybe it was Americanised by Fox) so I'll just leave you with your expert knowledge that drones are just like birds and they dont hurt planes, and of course people get killed by plane crashes, so two wrongs in your mind make a right. Conversation over.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Steve Game

The police investigate all plausible reports.

Police were investigating kids claiming clowns were stalking them. Since that's "plausible" then what's "plausible" ceases to have any real meaning.

Nobody here can prove that a drone was there, so by your reckoning, if anybody sees something serious they'd better not report it if they don't have the evidence set in stone.

The worst thing that airports have done is the "See Something, Say Something" signage. I bet this has led to absolutely nothing as far as making people safer, but has definitely led to people, say, reporting on Middle Eastern men doing math.

Luckily, the police don't put that sort of interpretation on event her otherwise it would be a paradise for anybody who wanted to do dangerous things where they could leave little or no evidence.

That's ridiculously wrong.

You seem to be hung up on 'drones' meaning toys like Phantoms or even Mavics.

If the proposed regulations didn't target them, I wouldn't be referencing those. But they do.

You also seem to be assuming the role of an expert on object hitting planes in flight. Maybe the news coverage of the events here didn't reach you, (or maybe it was Americanised by Fox) so I'll just leave you with your expert knowledge that drones are just like birds and they dont hurt planes, and of course people get killed by plane crashes, so two wrongs in your mind make a right. Conversation over.

This entire paragraph is laughably absurd. Try again, this time with less hysterics and, if you think you score points by referencing watching Fox to someone who doesn't watch cable news at all, think again. What's next, Steve? Going to go mock George Clooney for being unattractive to women?

And you can go ahead and list all the drones that have brought down a plane so far. Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Gary Huff]

Here's a really good article about what I think is really going on here.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...mes-180968011/

Just replace "drone" with "UFO". Thankfully, none of these reports (such as people reporting seeing a UFO over O'Hare in 2006) resulted in shutting down an airport, although UFO reports have shut down airports in China.

The Heathrow incident is now under investigation. I will predict that, like Gatwick, there will be nothing.

[Brian Drysdale]

I gather the Heathrow drone was seen by a BBC news cameraman who uses drones for his work. I can't speak for the videos that showed what looked like a drone at the airport.

Certainly mass "sightings" have a history, however, you can only go on what observers say and if their background makes them credible. There can be explanations for sightings, although drones are more likely objects than flying saucers and they have distinctive lights at night.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

you can only go on what observers say and if their background makes them credible.

There are plenty of people with credible backgrounds who make all kinds of crazy claims. That's a terrible way to consider the validity of someone's mere word. There are former Air Force officers claiming that aliens are messing with our nuclear arsenal. In your opinion, their background as being an officer in the Air Force and serving at these silo locations, makes them credible?

[Brian Drysdale]

Conspiracy theories are rather different to possible visual/optical/natural artifacts that may result in misreporting or possible misuse of drones by users.

Drones near airports or flight paths is currently regarded as a potential threat by aviation and the security forces. Drones have been used to supply drugs etc to prisoners. so it's a quite possible for them to be used for other illegal purposes.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Conspiracy theories are rather different to possible visual/optical/natural artifacts that may result in misreporting or possible misuse of drones by users.

These aren't "conspiracy theories"...these are people who have claimed to see aliens messing with our nuclear arsenal first hand. You, of course, would give their opinion great weight, right, Brian?

Drones near airports or flight paths is currently regarded as a potential threat by aviation and the security forces. Drones have been used to supply drugs etc to prisoners. so it's a quite possible for them to be used for other illegal purposes.

Your two comments don't make any sort of connection. Of course, the latter references a story in which the drone operator was caught and admitted it. His name is Brandon Smith. What is the name of the drone operator who flew at Gatwick? Heathrow? I'll wait.