Another drone sighting at Gatwick airport yesterday

[MavicMikeK]

Bird problems at airports still cause a lot more issues than drones but you hardly ever see them in the news because they're not causing as much hype as drones. There will always be drone operators who violate the laws and that's sad for those who want to just fly for fun because it's causing the FAA to crack down harder on the hobby. It's only going to get worse because of the new delivery services started up by Amazon, UPS, FedEx and more... they have deep pockets and will buy the skies for commercial use. The hobbyists fly space will shrink down to just AMA fields and very remote areas in the future, it all makes me upset to read what's happening to RC Pilots. Too much regulation is going to ruin the fun for everyone.

 

[sar104]

Bird problems at airports still cause a lot more issues than drones but you hardly ever see them in the news because they're not causing as much hype as drones. There will always be drone operators who violate the laws and that's sad for those who want to just fly for fun because it's causing the FAA to crack down harder on the hobby. It's only going to get worse because of the new delivery services started up by Amazon, UPS, FedEx and more... they have deep pockets and will buy the skies for commercial use. The hobbyists fly space will shrink down to just AMA fields and very remote areas in the future, it all makes me upset to read what's happening to RC Pilots. Too much regulation is going to ruin the fun for everyone.

Or, alternatively, none of that will happen.

 

[philbr118]

It’s happened again... same place. Three planes diverted yesterday.

Three planes diverted following 'drone sighting' at Gatwick Airport

Two easyjet flights and one British Airways flights diverted

www.independent.co.uk

probably to reinforce the proposed £16 registration fee, not that i am cynical at all.

 

[Slade]

Fake news, I suspect.

 

[Thomas B]

No drone ever seen/found and it was reported to be outside the airports no fly zone.
initial report True? Dunno. Irresponsible and incomplete reporting; absolutely. Anti drone group false reports and/or media bias; must consider.

 

[philbr118]

No drone ever seen/found and it was reported to be outside the airports no fly zone.
initial report True? Dunno. Irresponsible and incomplete reporting; absolutely. Anti drone group false reports and/or media bias; must consider.

with no evidence, as in the big gatwick incident, just another fake news report.

 

[Porky]

No drone ever seen/found and it was reported to be outside the airports no fly zone.
initial report True? Dunno. Irresponsible and incomplete reporting; absolutely. Anti drone group false reports and/or media bias; must consider.

Couldn’t agree with you any more on your comment, who’s the “anti drone people, oh yeah the media ?

 

[Winfam]

Even the Scottish police must think the word drone is toxic; they call their two new ones “RPAS” (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems).

 

[Anthony]

Don't worry. ... once we all register our drones and take the test oh and let's not forget pay £16.50 that will stop all of this .........

Hhmmmmmm.

 

[Prmath]

Terrorism is terrorism. They will use ANY means possible

 

[Dizzy1971]

I spotted this in a few places on the web (BBC and Sky, then a few Google result for more info) but not on TV and I don't do print any more. Probably because even the initial reporting made it clear this was more likely a non-event and Gatwick might have over reacted a bit in a perhaps understandable over-abundance of caution.

According to the stories I read, firstly, only a *possible* sighting (even by it was a pilot), and secondly it was *outside* the new 5km exclusion zone.

OK, that doesn't rule out a drone, but at 5km out an aircraft is more than likely either on final approach and still at a decent altitude, or is departing and climbing/banking. Neither of which allows much time for drone spotting, let alone positive drone IDing.

I'll give Gatwick the benefit of the doubt and say they got the report, started to react by diverting flights just in case, then realised the location and circumstances meant minimal risk/unlikely to actually be a drone and resumed normal operations. To their credit all this happened in the time it took for only three flights to be diverted, so their ability to correct after a false positive isn't too bad, really.

No surprise that the word "drone" is still a hot topic for the online media though, for good or bad.

Yeah that’s what the news report said, so it seems that just seeing a “possible” drone flying outside the airport exclusion zone now justifies diverting aircraft? Wtf? I sure hope that’s not the state we’re in these days.

 

[Dronage]

Ok...can someone explain one thing about all this..
If it is that easy to close an international airport by flying a drone near it, why are paramilitary groups the world over not closing airports down on a daily basis.?
1x Volunteer plus 1x drone could cause massive economic and practical cost to it's enemy for very little outlay...(see 1994 attack on heathrow...and they didn't even have drones..!)..
The whole gatwick thing smells deeply fishy to me....

 

[sar104]

Ok...can someone explain one thing about all this..
If it is that easy to close an international airport by flying a drone near it, why are paramilitary groups the world over not closing airports down on a daily basis.?
1x Volunteer plus 1x drone could cause massive economic and practical cost to it's enemy for very little outlay...(see 1994 attack on heathrow...and they didn't even have drones..!)..
The whole gatwick thing smells deeply fishy to me....

It clearly is possible to shut down a large airport - that's exactly what happened whether or not the sightings were real. Real sightings would obviously have had the same effect. But terrorists mostly want to induce terror, not just inconvenience or economic damage. They could also do that with bomb threats or other disruptive behavior that doesn't require the physical presence of a drone.