Dirty Bird Posted at 12-22 23:41
My understanding is the pair has been released.

Correct you are.  Now they are even questioning whether there were any Drones at all.  Possibly a case of UFO, followed by over active imaginations, leading to hysteria.

Aardvark Posted at 12-23 03:24
And now released without charge, so not guilty:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615

Hopefully wrong, but if it is like other wrongful arrests, and Media feeding frenzies, their lives are ruined.
  
Long time ago, here in U.S. - Paid security guard Richard Jewel saved many lives from being blown to bits.  His life was ruined by _____ing Media and Jack___ at FBI, fingering him as possible bomber.  One part of their hit job was displaying all Legally owned guns he had, calling it an arsenal, while painting him a gun nut.

maddog7 Posted at 12-23 12:08
I think it read, there MAY never have been any drone, not that there definitely wasn't, we still don't know for sure.

However, in answer to:

When authorities start Spinning stuff, you know governments Dirty Tricks agency is involved.
Mass Shooting in Las Vegas, was one of biggest cover-ups in history of U.S.  With FBI claiming a single sniper.  One big stinking problem, multiple recordings of gun fire with distinctively different guns being fired separately and simultaneously.

HereForTheBeer Posted at 12-23 00:38
His points are valid even though he maybe a trolling some of your people a bit, he is very suspicious as am I of the circumstances around this whole thing.  2018, have one of the highest volume airports in the UK and only two videos and ~50 people sighting it..?   The police cannot keep up with it in their choppers which have thermal cameras capable of seeing a wheel nut from a mile away, radar/Lidar that can lock into things moving and track their speed from miles away and top speed likely well in excess of 100 MPH.  Police very unwilling to take the drone down with force.. even though acting like they at the ready to shoot it in all publicity shots, when it came down to pushing them they backed off of it calling it too dangerous.. etc etc.

Also lots of people who fly  responsibly  And don’t need software to nanny them.  Also get this, DJI is really only nanny here, you can buy or build racing quads have no GPS, and make your own camera drone much larger and a mavic and fly anywhere you want without geofencing..   I haven’t seen him flying into a busy high volume airport..  why are you so uptight about him taking control of his drone, his money he paid for his drone he can do whatever he wants to it the DCMA has ruled in favor of that, with Caviet that manufacturer may terminate warranty if what you do causes damage. you didn’t contribute to it so you don’t get a say. Also  how is him removing an overbearing and inaccurate system make him like the tw*ts over at gatwick?

I am more than suspicious that there is not one decent video or picture of supposed drone over Airport.  Despite media being staked out at airport with more than adequate equipment to get even night time pictures.  Private citizens have night vision cameras & scopes, along with thermal imaging cameras & scopes.  Yet, major media's best equipment on scene was a cellphone?  

Where was authorities and military with their state of art cameras?   Did authorities and military forget about WWii type Search Lights?  Ones that illuminated German bombers.

Many years ago at the turn of the millenium, a young friend launched a dry cleaning bag hot-air balloon at midnight to celebrate the year 2000.

After it drifted over the nearby towns the UFO reports made the local newspapers. The 'flashing lights' was just the methylated spirit burner flickering.

Local radio station got involved and one caller stated that he not only saw the UFO but it landed on the road in front of his ute and it  was full of aliens.
That caller was full of something and it was not aliens

At least if it was our little grey friends with the big black eyes, we'd not be getting the blame, instead we could sit back and watch the government fill its nappy over how to handle the situation.
Even if I was gang probed in the invasion I'd at least get to laugh at that!!

maddog7 Posted at 12-24 00:25
At least if it was our little grey friends with the big black eyes, we'd not be getting the blame, instead we could sit back and watch the government fill its nappy over how to handle the situation.
Even if I was gang probed in the invasion I'd at least get to laugh at that!!

Turning into a bit of a stramash now, with the government apparently agreeing that the 67 drone sightings were legitimate, and there was miscommunication with the police. We'll have to ask 'chicken licken' if it was an acorn or not (Christmas panto theme).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714

So here is the knee-jerk reaction from Australian bureaucrats. This really sucks! New Aussie Drone Laws

Boffin Posted at 12-24 06:57
So here is the knee-jerk reaction from Australian bureaucrats. This really sucks! New Aussie Drone Laws

Don't worry the rest of the civilized world will be doing the same. FAA has been quiet about things here in the USA. They were doing webinars and i was told they would continue them through the winter. I have heard nothing since October.

Act now, relentlessly.

Tell 'em its BS and we know it is

Aardvark Posted at 12-24 06:34
Turning into a bit of a stramash now, with the government apparently agreeing that the 67 drone sightings were legitimate, and there was miscommunication with the police. We'll have to ask 'chicken licken' if it was an acorn or not (Christmas panto theme).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714

''During a conference call between ministers, chaired by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, it was agreed the 67 drone sightings were legitimate.''

(Back story of that conference call.)

For sake of passing more and stricter Drone Laws, it was agreed 67 drones had been sighted.
For sake of not looking foolish, it was agreed 67 drones had been sighted.
For sake of authorities and government officials not being fired, it was agreed 67 drones had been sighted.

I think they’re just trying to one up the Roswell incident. Haha

One of Elon's toys, at least 8Km away and can still easily read the name SpaceX.

maddog7 Posted at 12-25 11:18
[view_image]

One of Elon's toys, at least 8Km away and can still easily read the name SpaceX.

Sure it was 8Km away?   
Think SpaceX was taking the video, by flying along side using a MP2 with new ultra high performance Titanium props.  

hallmark007 Posted at 12-22 04:47
I imagine having arrested two people for flying drones over an international Airport with the intent of causing havoc should lead you to believe it actually happened.

I don’t think these people were flying for fun and didn’t know what they were doing, I believe people in Timbuktu were aware of the situation at Gatwick.

It didn't happen. There was no drones. It was all for political agendas and $$.
The Gatwick airport now has military grade drone prevention installed. Someone made some $$.
The couple arrested are now suing for damages. Source.

Facts are fun.

Bob Brown Posted at 12-26 07:10
It didn't happen. There was no drones. It was all for political agendas and $$.
The Gatwick airport now has military grade drone prevention installed. Someone made some $$.
The couple arrested are now suing for damages. Source.

From the story


Hello Sussex Police, I just saw a very large drone flying by!

Bob Brown Posted at 12-26 07:10
It didn't happen. There was no drones. It was all for political agendas and $$.
The Gatwick airport now has military grade drone prevention installed. Someone made some $$.
The couple arrested are now suing for damages. Source.

Ministers described the "possibility" comment as a “mess up”, according to Sky News, and said the police “have not handled their communication response well”.

Cause it calls into question their False Flag drone plan!   Hey but at least they got military grade anti-drone tech brought in.

As an article commenter alluded too.
Way to motiviate public, is to create a crisis.


''You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.'' - Rahm Emanuel

Bob Brown Posted at 12-26 07:10
It didn't happen. There was no drones. It was all for political agendas and $$.
The Gatwick airport now has military grade drone prevention installed. Someone made some $$.
The couple arrested are now suing for damages. Source.

I think we don’t know exactly what happened except to say that flying a drone in a NFZ or NFZ in an airport will have huge consequences particularly for those completely innocent, it’s not about weather officials got this wrong or not, it’s about the destruction that can be caused by those ignoring the rules of flying , those prepared to take the risk of hacking their drones so they can fly in NFZs .
If we choose to ignore the rules of flying drones, we put both the general public and property in danger, that won’t and shouldn’t be tolerated, so for those smarting because they haven’t come to a conclusion about Gatwick,  and a belief that we don’t or shouldn’t need to abide to NFZs , then these will be the ones that will do huge damage to drone users .

This for drone flyers isn’t about the cock up (if there was one) it’s a warning that NOT taking NFZs serious can have devastating consequences on both them and the general public, who lets face it were there thousands of years before drones, and deserve our respect.

Dirty Bird Posted at 12-26 15:47
I am rolling on the floor laughing here.

First you vehemently insisted this event was "100% certain" to be a legitimate drone incident.

You do what you do and if others follow so be it, but no one needs reminding of your ridiculous maverick escapades, the fact that you have to openly display shows your real need to be accepted.
But for most it’s the act of a very sad man.

It no longer matters whether there was or wasn't drone(s).  Authorities have delcared it was real.

UK Police Taking Measures to Avoid Repeat of Gatwick Drone Debacle
''That’s because, as we noted above, we now have evidence that drones, real or not, can have a really outsized impact on air travel and costs airlines and governments tons of money in the process.''

Couple Released Without Charges Over Gatwick Drone Incident
''That being said, whether there was a drone or not, this incident does  highlight the potential dangers of drones flying around airports and  other planes, and makes a compelling reason why drones should be  geofenced to prevent them from flying near airports and other sensitive  areas.''

And media is helping to promote the crisis.

The Gatwick Gaffe
''Not since the Battle of Britain has that island nation faced such a  threat from the air, though in this case the response has been less than  Churchillian.''

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-26 17:25
It no longer matters whether there was or wasn't drone(s).  Authorities have delcared it was real.

UK Police Taking Measures to Avoid Repeat of Gatwick Drone Debacle

(Non existant)  Video evidence:
    ''Then of course we look for the video footage of the drones. Well,  despite the fact the airport is awash with high quality cameras  surveying the entire grounds and perimeter; neither the airport, police,  members of the public, army, or the media could provide any footage or  photos to show a drone was there.
There is just one video clip on YouTube showing a silent black blob  in the sky and no conclusive proof the video was even shot at Gatwick  Airport.  Imagine that! One would have thought there would be dozens of  video clips showing drones buzzing above the airport. But no.
So all we have are witness statements of drone activity; some of  which are from the police themselves. All those holiday-makers and not  one of them thought to photograph the drones that were spoiling their  travel plans?''

No matter, authorities are going forth with crisis.  Cause right now they have full support of public to enact even draconian regulations and laws.
''Some drone users in the UK fear drones may be banned by Theresa May’s  government. They wonder if the airport’s closure was used to spark  public discussion about the risks of drones and garner support to ban  them (I’m certain at least 140,000 people want them banned).''

These people must be having one hell of a Christmas party. Drone Jammers Inc.

Champagne corks popping, sales targets reached and stock prices soaring like an imaginary phantom over an airport.

The problems with jammers are nicely summarised here though Jammer Legal Issues

I believe that this saga has a way to run yet as it creates many unwanted side effects if one attempts to block GPS signals for an autonomous flight - GPS is also disrupted for legitimate users too which could have deadly consequences.

As for the 2.4/5.8GHz signal disruptors, apart from screwing the legitimate users of this part of the r/f  spectrum (garage door openers, WiFi, security systems and every other device hopping around these bands) the real long range operators use readily available equipment on other (VHF) bands. Here is an intro to what I mean Long Range FPV

There has often been mention and hints how to fly using 4G (soon to be 5G), great in theory but it does require a phone signal so wait and see.

The bottom line is that the Govt. got caught with their pant's down and now a few politician's with enough technical knowledge to operate the remote on their vehicle, no I take that back, they have 'Chauffeurs', (publicly funded drivers) and it's not their vehicle anyway.

A few politicians who want to keep their name in the media are talking crap, about a subject that they know little of and so apologies to the few that do but that's life nowadays

Actually I would not be in the least bit surprised if some of these 'legislators' had a finger in the anti-drone technology pie

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-26 17:38
(Non existant)  Video evidence:
    ''Then of course we look for the video footage of the drones. Well,  despite the fact the airport is awash with high quality cameras  surveying the entire grounds and perimeter; neither the airport, police,  members of the public, army, or the media could provide any footage or  photos to show a drone was there.
There is just one video clip on YouTube showing a silent black blob  in the sky and no conclusive proof the video was even shot at Gatwick  Airport.  Imagine that! One would have thought there would be dozens of  video clips showing drones buzzing above the airport. But no.

Gatwick drone: We were treated for trauma reveal arrested pair
Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley - ''I'm completely satisfied the arrests were lawful, bearing in mind  the burden of proof and likely suspicion at the time of arrest,''

Comrade, you are Guility until you prove youself innocent.   Suspicion is all we need to arrest, detain, and interrogate you and  yours.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-26 17:54
Gatwick drone: We were treated for trauma reveal arrested pair
Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley - ''I'm completely satisfied the arrests were lawful, bearing in mind  the burden of proof and likely suspicion at the time of arrest,''

Just don't fly drones in Nigeria without a permit Guilty until proven innocent - very sad

Somebody, somewhere had a very merry Christmas because they orchestrated a very far reaching hoax.

So what if you are flying your drone quite legally at 100m above your farm and this happens? Low Flying Tornado.
Flying that low could put the chickens off laying

Plot thickens...........

https://www.theguardian.com/busi ... old-to-french-group

maddog7 Posted at 12-27 04:34
Plot thickens...........

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/27/gatwick-airport-sold-to-french-group

the plot defiantly has thickened

Boffin Posted at 12-26 23:29
So what if you are flying your drone quite legally at 100m above your farm and this happens? Low Flying Tornado.
Flying that low could put the chickens off laying

So what if you are flying your drone quite legally at 100m above your farm ...
Don't you know?  Laws are for little people, the common folk.  

maddog7 Posted at 12-27 04:34
Plot thickens...........

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/27/gatwick-airport-sold-to-french-group

From the article.
'' ... has invested £5m in a range of anti-drone technologies over the past few days.''

Nice little Christmas bonus to French group of buyers.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-27 08:35
So what if you are flying your drone quite legally at 100m above your farm ...
Don't you know?  Laws are for little people, the common folk.

It is the same rules for everyone.
The Drone operator should have registered the flight on the CAA database (just like any other pilot) and then the incident would not have happened.

JAgraphics Posted at 12-28 03:04
It is the same rules for everyone.
The Drone operator should have registered the flight on the CAA database (just like any other pilot) and then the incident would not have happened.

Should, but not required according to article.
''While the drone operator was not required to inform Wattisham Airfield of their plans, Air Command said they could have done so considering the proximity of the base.''

On flip, Tornado's pilot should have stayed well above maximum altitude of drones.  

If there was a requirement for Tornado's Pilot (or formation) to fly extremely low, into what is possible drone airspace, then Military should notify CAA and have a temporary restriction put in place.

I for one applaud drone operator for reporting incident.  Perhaps it will serve as a wake-up.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-28 09:35
Should, but not required according to article.
''While the drone operator was not required to inform Wattisham Airfield of their plans, Air Command said they could have done so considering the proximity of the base.''

There is no "drone airspace" and the Military Jets are cleared to fly almost anywhere.   Wattisham has been an RAF base for about 80 years and has had fast jets for as long as I can remember (decades).  Also having lived in a similar area any farmer would know the military fly below 400ft near airbases.  So the Farmer should have notified the CAA of the flight as was mentioned.  The CAA app is free and easy to use.

Yes it will serve as a wake up call but with the reverse actions to the ones you are hoping for.  Not notifying the CAA  in areas where the Military jets fly means that they will just make notification a mandatory requirement.......      for *all* drone flights everywhere.

UAV pilots have to fit in with the established aviation systems. Not the other way around.   

I don't understand why intercepting a wayward drone is hard.  Just launch a Phantom or cheap race drone owned by the airport to intercept and take down the fancy camera drone by colliding with it.  Teach one of the young control tower employees to fly a drone and put them in charge of taking down any civilian drones encroaching on airport NFZ's.  I say a control tower employee because they would be in closest communication with air traffic control and authorities.

Otherwise,...   

JAgraphics Posted at 12-28 10:55
There is no "drone airspace" and the Military Jets are cleared to fly almost anywhere.   Wattisham has been an RAF base for about 80 years and has had fast jets for as long as I can remember (decades).  Also having lived in a similar area any farmer would know the military fly below 400ft near airbases.  So the Farmer should have notified the CAA of the flight as was mentioned.  The CAA app is free and easy to use.

Yes it will serve as a wake up call but with the reverse actions to the ones you are hoping for.  Not notifying the CAA  in areas where the Military jets fly means that they will just make notification a mandatory requirement.......      for *all* drone flights everywhere.

So the Farmer should have notified the CAA of the flight as was mentioned.

Your opinion.  According to article, CAA reviewed drone incident and found no fault by pilot of drone.  Nor was outcome of investigation that a new procedure or regulation needed to be implemented.


Naturally you are free to do as you wish.  


But I submit that notifying CAA (or in here in U.S. FAA) when there is no requirement to do so, is both a waste of time and could become dangerous.  Too many needless notifications, and important required and/or needed notifications get burried and lost.  


Further, we simply do not need to be concocting our own policies, which will only lead to people ignoring such policies, and ignoring actual laws and regulations.  Instead we should be focusing on drone pilots following existing laws and regulations.  Along with castigating those who brag about or flaunt their violations of law.

Gunship9 Posted at 12-28 12:16
I don't understand why intercepting a wayward drone is hard.  Just launch a Phantom or cheap race drone owned by the airport to intercept and take down the fancy camera drone by colliding with it.  Teach one of the young control tower employees to fly a drone and put them in charge of taking down any civilian drones encroaching on airport NFZ's.  I say a control tower employee because they would be in closest communication with air traffic control and authorities.

Otherwise,...

I don't understand why intercepting a wayward drone is hard.  Just launch a Phantom or cheap race drone owned by the airport to intercept and take down the fancy camera drone by colliding with it.  


Such a suggestion was brought up and dismissed by authorities.  Reason given was interception of, knocking down of, crashing of rogue drone would result in both debris of rogue drone and intercept drone being scattered on ground.  Most worrisome being runways, taxi ways, and parking areas of planes.  Especially when it comes to jets with low mounted engines that could suck in debris.

Think airport authorities could purchase a lot runway sweepers and vaccuums, given cost of delays and/or days of shutdowns.  Even hire and train a group of people to do a thourgh inspection of runways, taxi ways, and parking areas of planes in case a intercept drone had to be used.  Bet a thourgh inspection of any airport, would find stuff you would not want sucked into a Jet engine.  

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-28 14:51
I don't understand why intercepting a wayward drone is hard.  Just launch a Phantom or cheap race drone owned by the airport to intercept and take down the fancy camera drone by colliding with it.  

Their reason for not implementing drone interceptors seems dim.  Like not intercepting other airborne hazards like enemy bombers because the debris falls to earth.  

In my solution, there would be a need for the intercept pilot to go clean up his kill but it would rapidly stop the danger posed by drone intrusions to the NFZ.  Plus, the airport worker/pilot would have a cool trophy wall.

Phantom 4s are expensive.  Imagine the look on the photographer's face when his drone and it's camera fall out of the air because a government drone crashed into it.  I figure the people doing this foolishness are photographers and not pilots.  Photographers being "anything for the shot and audience numbers!"

Gunship9 Posted at 12-28 15:57
Their reason for not implementing drone interceptors seems dim.  Like not intercepting other airborne hazards like enemy bombers because the debris falls to earth.  

In my solution, there would be a need for the intercept pilot to go clean up his kill but it would rapidly stop the danger posed by drone intrusions to the NFZ.  Plus, the airport worker/pilot would have a cool trophy wall.

Yes, there are some Photogs with that dangerous mindset.  I had a "anything" Photog flipper kick my face mask off and scuba regulator out of my mouth, while we were following dive master through a coral reef tunnel.  The (redacted) also stirred up a bunch of bottom silt making it hard to see afterwards.
Had he done that to a lesser experienced diver or someone not as comfortable being underwater, it could have resulted in a dead diver.  

Thankfully, most photographers are professionals and draw a line before the "anything".  

Gunship9 Posted at 12-28 15:57
Their reason for not implementing drone interceptors seems dim.  Like not intercepting other airborne hazards like enemy bombers because the debris falls to earth.  

In my solution, there would be a need for the intercept pilot to go clean up his kill but it would rapidly stop the danger posed by drone intrusions to the NFZ.  Plus, the airport worker/pilot would have a cool trophy wall.

Their reason for not implementing drone interceptors seems dim.

What I thought too.  Bigger risk was letting: an irresponsible drone pilot, nutcase, eco terrorists, or real terroist continue flying drone around.  Said person(s) flying drone could have moved on to another airport, one now busy and overloaded, taking out a plane loaded with passengers.

Boffin Posted at 12-26 17:46
These people must be having one hell of a Christmas party. Drone Jammers Inc.

Champagne corks popping, sales targets reached and stock prices soaring like an imaginary phantom over an airport.

Oh dear, I spoke too soon DroneShield Share Price skyrockets

In reply to my previous 'cynical' post