Drone at London Gatwick forces runway closure

[M4RK]

Drone causes disruption at Gatwick airport - BBC News

 

[cheekymonkeyman]

I was sat in an airplane at LGW waiting for the idiot to ground it. Twice he/she went up. Probably wanting a good shot of planes taking off or landing and wondering why there weren't any.... After a 2 hour delay we were airborne. I love my Mavic and hope this kind of behaviour gets punished at source - not applied across all drone users.
I know there's a lot of negative talk about what DJI are doing by potentially tracking our use but when it comes to class A idiocy like this I do wonder if there is any other route to keep our responsible flying alive?

 

[M4RK]

Could you actually see the drone then?

I agree with you about DJI's tracking and NFZ restrictions, but they are a major contribution to safety as it is going to be an increasing problem as you state.

 

[M4RK]

It's on every news across the UK this morning...

 

[GerdS]

Last time at Heathrow it was a wind-blown plastic bag, if I remember right?

 

[M4RK]

Anyone see any photos of the offending drone in the press?

 

[Mike_in_Letcombe]

I continuously see postings by innumerable idiots on here, about their latest escapade of flying over a city, a busy dual carriageway or motorway and countless other stupid ways to bring the whole hobby into disrepute - 'I took it to 500 metres and what a view, LOL...'. Everyone who has a drone of any worth (I'm not talking about the £25 'toys' that you get in Maplin) know that you cannot fly near airports, know you shouldn't go above 120 metres and SHOULD know about VLOS. But they ignore it, then innumerable people on these forums defend them, saying they're 'newbies' and just need a bit of guidance. No they don't - they need telling, in the strongest possible terms, that they are wrecking it for everyone else who DOES obey the rules! This latest escapade has now gone National on the news, the Airline Pilots are calling for compulsory registration and that will inevitably lead to 'controlled zones' that you can fly in - after you have joined a club and taken lessons / obtained certificates, etc. Which by itself wouldn't be too bad except it will still be the idiots who break the rules and the rest of us are shot down in flames by a public who are fed-up of these 'reported' incidents - most of which have proved to be false. So this individual who tried to get a 'nice shot' of a plane from the end of an active runway may just have signed the death warrant for our hobby. Am I peeved? **** right - I obey the law, I use common sense and I don't put others at risk. Why do people like me, who have been warning that tighter controls are inevitable because of these ludicrous antics, just get ignored with the common title of 'drone police'. Too late now - I expect a raft of new laws to be passed during this year....

 

[M4RK]

So....was it a drone on this occasion?!!

 

[Pablo]

Well @cheekymonkeyman says it was a drone. Unless he watched a man launch a plastic bag up into the air.

 

[cheekymonkeyman]

To be fair I can only go by what the pilot and ATC reported. The window on my plane was large enough to see the runway was 'dead' but I couldn't say I saw the drone. The fact that it was apparently seen to go up twice and the relative timings suggests a battery change so I suspect it was a real sighting but I have no evidence. The pilot was brilliant to be fair. He came into the cabin to explain the issue and also in a friendly manner asked those who owned drones to avoid airports due to the 'disruption' and potential safety issues - he didn't deride the hobby at all. He then proceeded to welcome any passengers to view the flight deck and ask questions to pass the time. Full marks.
I live within the LGW NFZ and close to the extended NFZ flight path and have never flown within it... I'm not the drone police... I just want to enjoy my time responsibly and in a relatively stress free manner. I know the press often blow this stuff out of proportion and that annoys but I also know there are some people who go way beyond 'stretching' the rules and make the press life easier...

 

[willhay555]

I'll start believing these stories when I start seeing proof.

 

[MrsTreat]

I continuously see postings by innumerable idiots on here, about their latest escapade of flying over a city, a busy dual carriageway or motorway and countless other stupid ways to bring the whole hobby into disrepute - 'I took it to 500 metres and what a view, LOL...'. Everyone who has a drone of any worth (I'm not talking about the £25 'toys' that you get in Maplin) know that you cannot fly near airports, know you shouldn't go above 120 metres and SHOULD know about VLOS. But they ignore it, then innumerable people on these forums defend them, saying they're 'newbies' and just need a bit of guidance. No they don't - they need telling, in the strongest possible terms, that they are wrecking it for everyone else who DOES obey the rules! This latest escapade has now gone National on the news, the Airline Pilots are calling for compulsory registration and that will inevitably lead to 'controlled zones' that you can fly in - after you have joined a club and taken lessons / obtained certificates, etc. Which by itself wouldn't be too bad except it will still be the idiots who break the rules and the rest of us are shot down in flames by a public who are fed-up of these 'reported' incidents - most of which have proved to be false. So this individual who tried to get a 'nice shot' of a plane from the end of an active runway may just have signed the death warrant for our hobby. Am I peeved? **** right - I obey the law, I use common sense and I don't put others at risk. Why do people like me, who have been warning that tighter controls are inevitable because of these ludicrous antics, just get ignored with the common title of 'drone police'. Too late now - I expect a raft of new laws to be passed during this year....

Well said!!

 

[Johnmcl7]

I'll start believing these stories when I start seeing proof.

I feel similarly sceptical - 70 near misses according to the article and we're in an era where there's a lot of cameras out there but no-one has been able to get a picture or video of these drones. Even in this case where the sighting was serious in the disruption, I'd have thought they would have pulled out all the stops to at the very least capture an image or video of drone plus potentially tracking where it was going.

I don't in any way condone illegal flights and if these drone flight endangering planes are actually happening then something needs to be done about them rather than what they seem to be doing at the moment with absolutely zero results.

 

[danman999]

Ah yes, the usual reaction of the whole world is out to get drones and their operators. Professional pilots with thousands of hours of flight time are making up drone sightings out of jealousy because all they can fly are modern, state-of-the-art aircraft that took them years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn how to fly.

 

[GerdS]

Always remember, pilots have seen objects around their planes since the very beginning of aviation, not just since small drones exist. In former times theese objects have been called UFOs and most pilots kept their sightings private for not getting called "insane"...

 

[Simes]

What I would like to know is are there any rules in terms of how low pilots can fly their manned aircraft below 400'. I was recently flying at about 270 in a valley and too vintage aircraft flew through the valley! Another time I had to lower altitude to allow a Microlite to pass.

Is there something I should be doing to avoid such encounters?

 

[Keule]

... are there any rules in terms of how low pilots can fly their manned aircraft below 400'

Low flying rules in the US
In the US, Part 91 (specifically 91.119[4]) of the Federal Aviation Regulations controls the minimum safe altitudes by which aircraft can be operated in the National Airspace System.
500 ft rule
An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

 

[Simes]

Low flying rules in the US
In the US, Part 91 (specifically 91.119[4]) of the Federal Aviation Regulations controls the minimum safe altitudes by which aircraft can be operated in the National Airspace System.
500 ft rule
An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Thanks. I'm in the UK. Maybe someone will come along who knows about UK rules

 

[Keule]

Thanks. I'm in the UK. Maybe someone will come along who knows about UK rules

Low flying rules in the UK
In the UK, the Rules of the Air are defined clearly in the principles of Low Flying Rules in Rule 5. The main principle is that an aircraft must always be able to perform an emergency landing in a case of engine failure. Hence these three criteria:
500 ft rule
An aircraft must not fly closer than 500 ft to any person, vessel, vehicle, building or structure.
1000 ft rule
If an aircraft is flying over a congested area (town, settlement, etc.) it must fly high enough so that in the case of an engine failure, it is able to land clear without being a danger to people ANDit must not fly less than 1000 ft above the highest fixed object within 600 m of the aircraft.
Defined exemptions include normal take-off and landing at aerodromes, helicopters (including military vehicles, police helicopters and air ambulances, air displays and hill-soaring in gliders.

 

[Scubadiver1944]

I continuously see postings by innumerable idiots on here, about their latest escapade of flying over a city, a busy dual carriageway or motorway and countless other stupid ways to bring the whole hobby into disrepute - 'I took it to 500 metres and what a view, LOL...'. Everyone who has a drone of any worth (I'm not talking about the £25 'toys' that you get in Maplin) know that you cannot fly near airports, know you shouldn't go above 120 metres and SHOULD know about VLOS. But they ignore it, then innumerable people on these forums defend them, saying they're 'newbies' and just need a bit of guidance. No they don't - they need telling, in the strongest possible terms, that they are wrecking it for everyone else who DOES obey the rules! This latest escapade has now gone National on the news, the Airline Pilots are calling for compulsory registration and that will inevitably lead to 'controlled zones' that you can fly in - after you have joined a club and taken lessons / obtained certificates, etc. Which by itself wouldn't be too bad except it will still be the idiots who break the rules and the rest of us are shot down in flames by a public who are fed-up of these 'reported' incidents - most of which have proved to be false. So this individual who tried to get a 'nice shot' of a plane from the end of an active runway may just have signed the death warrant for our hobby. Am I peeved? **** right - I obey the law, I use common sense and I don't put others at risk. Why do people like me, who have been warning that tighter controls are inevitable because of these ludicrous antics, just get ignored with the common title of 'drone police'. Too late now - I expect a raft of new laws to be passed during this year....

I have the good fortune to be able to visit several exotic locations each year in pursuit of my hobby to do underwater and topside video, and hoping to be supplemented by aerial shots from my newly purchased Mavic. Wishing to acquire sufficient expertise in learning to fly it in the months prior to a trip to the Philippines, I contacted my local council about the possibility of doing so from one of their nearby parks, at a time when the kids would be in school and the only likely users of said parks might be one man and his dog. No luck, as they had a blanket ban on drone & model aircraft flying from all council owned parks and open spaces. Only way to learn safely would be to join a local model aircraft club who have permission to fly in an area set aside for them in the largest park in the city at a cost of £50 for membership! This includes insurance in case of accidents and flyers must also possess a first aid kit & bandages (for tourniquets) in case of propeller induced injuries. This may seem irksome but if you think about it better safe than sorry. In light of the Gatwick reported incident, do we have to wait for some moron to have their drone sucked into a jet intake, risking bringing about engine failure, similar to the bird strike incident which crippled that jet sufficient to bring it down to a landing on the Hudson River in New York several years ago? No people, more state regulation is coming, such as compulsory registration, annual fees for monitoring of the system and proficiency tests in drone flying unless we all pressurise any one we know who thinks they can behave like cowboys and do what they want, when they want and to who they want. After all would you like motor vehicle drivers to be untested, uninsured and unlicensed to give freedom of the roads to any cowboy who wants to drive a car? A drone may not be as potentially lethal as a car but in the wrong hands and in the wrong circumstances it could prove a lethal weapon.