Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
UK : Airport disruption follow up - BBC prog 15/04/2019
390 14 4-14 15:10
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
Lamplighter55
Captain
Flight distance : 538596 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Further to the 'Drone disruptions' at the end of 2018 at the two main SE international airports in the UK, there's a TV programme due for broadcast 15/04/2019 about what happened at Gatwick Airport in particular. Should be interesting viewing for those of us based in the UK. (BBC news article 14/04/2019)
4-14 15:10
Use props
*DM*
First Officer
Flight distance : 496867 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Apologies, just started a thread on the same subject as I didn't see yours.

What amazes me is that they still insist there actually was a drone despite no proof.

I will watch it tonight.
4-14 23:38
Use props
A J
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

This will be an interesting one to watch this evening!
4-15 00:49
Use props
Picanoc Jack
Captain
Flight distance : 4702382 ft
Canada
Offline

apparently it was an inside job
4-15 01:51
Use props
calpol91
lvl.2
Flight distance : 192182 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Picanoc Jack Posted at 4-15 01:51
apparently it was an inside job

im not usually this sceptical, but i wouldn't be surprised in this case....
4-15 03:16
Use props
djiuser_jHuSEbyr12Iq
lvl.1

Ukraine
Offline

What amazes me is that they still insist there actually was a drone despite no proof.

4-15 03:32
Use props
jacksonnai
Captain
Malaysia
Offline

Thanks for sharing!
4-15 05:04
Use props
Lamplighter55
Captain
Flight distance : 538596 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Watched the programme - don't bother, just sensationalist low grade reportage done in the vox-pop docu-drama style. I'm sure it was entertaining for all the delayed passengers to relate their story - 'Look Mum we're on TV now!'. All talk about 'attack' and 'threat' then more intercut clips of irate passengers - pregnant woman, kids going to Lapland etc. Basically the story had no more information than what was already known - so nothing new apart from some vague speculation that the 'attacks' were done by someone with a grudge against the airport. All a lot of hoopla and nothing of substance - much like the original 'drone sightings'. A programme designed to make the general public even more 'anti-drones'. Just irritating.
4-16 15:33
Use props
fansd556ffc7
lvl.3
Flight distance : 417589 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Totally agree. If in doubt, speculate. This was no more of an investigation than a repeat of previous information. Interesting however to hear that although the CEO of Gatwick praised his "observers", he seemed convinced the Garwick incident was an inside job? No mention of course of the later Heathrow incidentthat led to an RC model flyer being convicted. What will the BMFA say about that I wonder?
4-16 23:23
Use props
A J
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

Lamplighter55 Posted at 4-16 15:33
Watched the programme - don't bother, just sensationalist low grade reportage done in the vox-pop docu-drama style. I'm sure it was entertaining for all the delayed passengers to relate their story - 'Look Mum we're on TV now!'. All talk about 'attack' and 'threat' then more intercut clips of irate passengers - pregnant woman, kids going to Lapland etc. Basically the story had no more information than what was already known - so nothing new apart from some vague speculation that the 'attacks' were done by someone with a grudge against the airport. All a lot of hoopla and nothing of substance - much like the original 'drone sightings'. A programme designed to make the general public even more 'anti-drones'. Just irritating.

I liked the bit where the old couple were driving past at night and noticed the drone 'with big arms' being flown by the pilot as they drove past and reported it to the police. Yeah, like someone who is committing a serious criminal offence will be operating their drone at the side of a busy road... Some people need to at least use their imagination when making up crap - he did say that their 'story' was dropped by the Police though so why include it in the programme as he spent five minutes dramatising their experience which was clearly a load of BS. It was very unfairly weighted against drones - about three minutes of the half hour covered the positives of them.

This was, IMO, either 1/ an inside job - a disgruntled employee who may have been fired looking to get one over on them 2/ no drone was there in the first place and used to cover up a major default in the airport systems and they didn't want to shell out millions in compensation to 140,000 passengers and suffer the embarrassment and high profile resignations that would follow or 3/ it was government led to help clear the air of hobbyists and small business ops in readiness for bigger business like Amazon deliveries. Not to mention some companies made several million out of installing anti drone hardware there...

We live in a country that has trident nuclear subs and missiles, the SAS, MI5 and MI6 and one of the most advanced and oldest armed services on the planet, including the RAF and they expect me to believe that my 16 year old nephew can walk into an Apple Store, buy a drone and ground one of the biggest airports in the world for days without being caught... Whatever!
4-17 00:21
Use props
Boffin
First Officer
Australia
Offline

A J Posted at 4-17 00:21
I liked the bit where the old couple were driving past at night and noticed the drone 'with big arms' being flown by the pilot as they drove past and reported it to the police. Yeah, like someone who is committing a serious criminal offence will be operating their drone at the side of a busy road... Some people need to at least use their imagination when making up crap - he did say that their 'story' was dropped by the Police though so why include it in the programme as he spent five minutes dramatising their experience which was clearly a load of BS. It was very unfairly weighted against drones - about three minutes of the half hour covered the positives of them.

This was, IMO, either 1/ an inside job - a disgruntled employee who may have been fired looking to get one over on them 2/ no drone was there in the first place and used to cover up a major default in the airport systems and they didn't want to shell out millions in compensation to 140,000 passengers and suffer the embarrassment and high profile resignations that would follow or 3/ it was government led to help clear the air of hobbyists and small business ops in readiness for bigger business like Amazon deliveries. Not to mention some companies made several million out of installing anti drone hardware there...

So could it be related to this Gatwick sale ? Which happened at the same time! Maybe somebody was a bit p.....ed off about selling out to a foreign multinational
4-17 00:33
Use props
A J
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

Boffin Posted at 4-17 00:33
So could it be related to this Gatwick sale ? Which happened at the same time!

Add it to the list mate - even if there was a drone there it only proves how inept our security services are and doesn't make me feel very safe as a British citizen to say the least. Though I'm 99% certain this is a total cover up and our hobby is being used as the platform for it!
4-17 00:36
Use props
Boffin
First Officer
Australia
Offline

A J Posted at 4-17 00:36
Add it to the list mate - even if there was a drone there it only proves how inept our security services are and doesn't make me feel very safe as a British citizen to say the least. Though I'm 99% certain this is a total cover up and our hobby is being used as the platform for it!

Then there is this option Droneshield Share Price.

With the potential $$$ involved I would not put it past anybody to boost the bottom line. Droneshield sales

It appears to be a lucrative business

4-17 00:52
Use props
Lamplighter55
Captain
Flight distance : 538596 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

A J Posted at 4-17 00:21
I liked the bit where the old couple were driving past at night and noticed the drone 'with big arms' being flown by the pilot as they drove past and reported it to the police. Yeah, like someone who is committing a serious criminal offence will be operating their drone at the side of a busy road... Some people need to at least use their imagination when making up crap - he did say that their 'story' was dropped by the Police though so why include it in the programme as he spent five minutes dramatising their experience which was clearly a load of BS. It was very unfairly weighted against drones - about three minutes of the half hour covered the positives of them.

This was, IMO, either 1/ an inside job - a disgruntled employee who may have been fired looking to get one over on them 2/ no drone was there in the first place and used to cover up a major default in the airport systems and they didn't want to shell out millions in compensation to 140,000 passengers and suffer the embarrassment and high profile resignations that would follow or 3/ it was government led to help clear the air of hobbyists and small business ops in readiness for bigger business like Amazon deliveries. Not to mention some companies made several million out of installing anti drone hardware there...

One 'theory' was that a software upgrade at NATS had a bug, that was propagated out to a couple of ATC centres before it was caught. So they had to step back a version and reboot the system - but as before in order to do that, it necessitated that all inbound and outbound flight traffic was halted. So it was an easy rouse to stick it all on a drone 'attack' at each airport directly affected. Who knows - as the quote goes 'If you are going to tell a lie make sure its a big one, so that the reactions of the credulous mask the 'little lie' that actually was the case'. To paraphrase Goebbels. So it goes, so it goes.
4-17 11:35
Use props
A J
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

Lamplighter55 Posted at 4-17 11:35
One 'theory' was that a software upgrade at NATS had a bug, that was propagated out to a couple of ATC centres before it was caught. So they had to step back a version and reboot the system - but as before in order to do that, it necessitated that all inbound and outbound flight traffic was halted. So it was an easy rouse to stick it all on a drone 'attack' at each airport directly affected. Who knows - as the quote goes 'If you are going to tell a lie make sure its a big one, so that the reactions of the credulous mask the 'little lie' that actually was the case'. To paraphrase Goebbels. So it goes, so it goes.

Goebbels - as in Hitler's minister of propaganda - figures! That theory is far more credible than what the executives at Gatwick are coming out with. It also amazes me how all 115 eye witnesses were all employed by the airport and not one member of the public yet not one person took a photo or video footage that is credible enough to be used as evidence, no drone was ever found and despite a £50,000 reward no drone operator has been caught/prosecuted four months later.

I can just imagine the interviews with the credible, long serving staff who saw the drone...

I think it was a 'Sainsbury's drone' said Billy the airport road sweeper who has worked at Gatwick for 44 years. Are you sure it was not a carrier bag Billy? No, it was a drone, like my boss said!
4-17 11:53
Use props
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules