Gatwick incident thread .Please resume in this one .
- Thread starter dirkclod
- Start date
Do not underestimate the "violated feelings". This nonsense might have traumatised these people for years to come. Maybe you are used to have your house upside down, been locked in a cell, your name on the papers and TV, but apparently they don't. Oh, maybe you are one of the perpetrators and just have a laugh at it ?
They're obviously trying to get as big a payout as possible. Now claiming "cant work" and "move house".
Gold digging.
Limited sympathy for them now as it seems to be a money making scheme. They'll get a payout from the press not the police. Police did nothing wrong.
Gold digging.
Limited sympathy for them now as it seems to be a money making scheme. They'll get a payout from the press not the police. Police did nothing wrong.
Congoblue
Well-Known Member
I am not so sure the police did nothing wrong. There was clearly enormous political and media pressure on them to apprehend someone which could have influenced their normal more careful processes.
There was a newspaper report at the time, which I now cannot find again, that they were flagged as suspects and arrested due to facebook posts they had made about drones and living near the airport. Of course like a lot of the reporting this may or may not be true.
There was a newspaper report at the time, which I now cannot find again, that they were flagged as suspects and arrested due to facebook posts they had made about drones and living near the airport. Of course like a lot of the reporting this may or may not be true.
I suspect they have retained an ambulance chasing solicitor on a "no win, no fee" basis and are just acting on their advice - can't really blame them for that if so, it's not like they have any other avenue for seeking damages, disgusting as that entire "industry" is. It's a damages claim in civil court; the standard playbook is to make it seem as bad as possible to maximise the payout, a good chunk of which will actually go to the law firm, so of course they'll be pressing them to be liberal with the extent of the damage. No different from all the "whiplash" claims from people who get involved in the most minor of traffic accidents. Pretty sure the press will have their own lawyers who are equally adept at knocking holes in the claims - probably on speed dial in the case of the tabloids for whom such things are just part of the cost of doing business.
Police arrested suspects, questioned them, found no evidence to convict (at least the legal weight required) and they were released. The same thing that goes on every single day throughout the country. They did not release names or details of the people.
All of that was the media. Who since the cliff richard fiasco are likely to have to give a ludicrous payout, most of which an ambulance chaser will keep.
All of that was the media. Who since the cliff richard fiasco are likely to have to give a ludicrous payout, most of which an ambulance chaser will keep.
FoxhallGH
Well-Known Member
Well - it 'seems' to be official ... I just heard on the 6:00 pm news that the Government has passed an amendment to law to extend the exclusion zone around UK Airports from 1 Km to 5 Km ... The news report made it sound like a done-deal - but recent news postings on-line are saying that "Government are considering ..." [ Subscribe to read | Financial Times ] ... So I'm still to see written reports - but it does seem like if you live within the M25, there isn't going to be many places you can fly a drone! ...
The report also talked about the planned registration process next November - and made it sound like it was a new idea! Perhaps in the wake of Gatwick, the Gov' just needed to make it look like they were doing something by crowing about the registration process - which they haven't bothered to do before ...
The report also talked about the planned registration process next November - and made it sound like it was a new idea! Perhaps in the wake of Gatwick, the Gov' just needed to make it look like they were doing something by crowing about the registration process - which they haven't bothered to do before ...
Multiple reports saying "under consideration", which is probably correct since it needs to go through Parliament before it can become law, and I think Brexit and related matters are rather higher up the priority list at present. Depending on how that goes relatively minor things like this are likely to get kicked down the road pretty quickly I suspect, which may not be a bad thing if it lets the influence of Gatwick fade a bit. FYI, this appears to be the currently scheduled drone legislation (due for its second Commons reading on 15th Feb 2019), which is only at the second step of an eleven step process and only applies to larger aircraft, although that could be amended. Peter Bone is the MP you want to reach out to on this, if you are so inclined.
Still, at this point I'm pretty much resigned to some more restrictions and harsher penalties for infringement being introduced eventually, but if they go ahead with 5km then I can only hope they be selective. 5km from major airports and military bases is one thing, but 5km from every airstrip and heliport (many of which might not even be used some days) is something else. Barring overlaps with other NFZs, that's an extra 75km² for *every* airstrip in the UK (over 1,800 according to this site), so quite likely over 100,000km² in total. Factor in all the other legally enforced NFZs and local ordinances and byelaws from councils and the likes of the NT and EH and I can easily see some areas of the UK essentially becoming one giant NFZ.
Still, at this point I'm pretty much resigned to some more restrictions and harsher penalties for infringement being introduced eventually, but if they go ahead with 5km then I can only hope they be selective. 5km from major airports and military bases is one thing, but 5km from every airstrip and heliport (many of which might not even be used some days) is something else. Barring overlaps with other NFZs, that's an extra 75km² for *every* airstrip in the UK (over 1,800 according to this site), so quite likely over 100,000km² in total. Factor in all the other legally enforced NFZs and local ordinances and byelaws from councils and the likes of the NT and EH and I can easily see some areas of the UK essentially becoming one giant NFZ.
Last edited:
Congoblue
Well-Known Member
BBC report says the exclusion will be the ATZ around the airport "which is usually about 5km with extensions for runways" rather than a 5km circle. Which would actually be quite sensible.
FoxhallGH
Well-Known Member
Hopefully there will be some sensibility ... It's the Airline Pilots Association that's pushing for the extension from 1 Km to 5 Km, so it would figure that they won't be too worried about airstrips that aren't used for airliners & scheduled flights. My understanding was that DJI were already working on extending the NFZ's based on runway centre-line extensions anyway. Fingers crossed that the changes will be sensible and minimal!
HeavensAbove
Well-Known Member
FoxhallGH
Well-Known Member
I read in an earlier report, that Chris Grayling also pointed out in his address to Parliament, that 1Km or 5Km zones don't make any difference to people wanting to break the rules - so at least they have got that one right!
Last edited:
No but it will prevent people who dont know or arent aware of the rules flying too close to an airport (with the current 1km rule it'd be quite possible to have a drone on the glidepath of the ILS without being aware or warned...which is clearly not a good thing).
FoxhallGH
Well-Known Member
True - It would be nice though, if the NFZ's could be a bit more intelligent in that regard i.e. extend to 5 Km's out on runway centre-line's, but 1 or 2 Km's everywhere else.
It would but from a software and data storage point of view thats a lot more processing and data required than simply calculating a circular radius.
My personal view would be a no fly zone anywhere at standard circuit height or lower (so 1000ft). Thats about 3nm so not far off what is being suggested.
I'm not so sure, and we've already seen DJI doing this with NFZs that extend out from the runways at some airfields.
At present, I'd assume that DJI must already be storing the GPS co-ords of each airfield to locate the NFZs, then calculating a circle from that co-ord based on a set radius. They may already be saving that radius with each co-ord, but even if not it's only a simple integer field for distance. To add in approach paths, they'd need to add three more fields to their data; the direction of runway (degrees from true north, perhaps?) and how long it is for a simple 50:50 split between approach and takeoff, and how wide the NFZ needs to be, then render a rectangle over the existing circle. For airports with more than one runway, they'd also need to have one entry for each runway, rather than one entry for the entire airport.
That's not a huge increase on the current data set in raw terms, a few MB globally maybe?, and only an extra rectangle to render per runway on screen. Unless they're really strapped for storage space on some drones, I suspect the compilation of the data will be the hardest part, although AFAICT they generally expect the local aviation authorities etc. to provide all this.
Seems like a reasonable compromise, and grounded in a practical justification rather than some arbitrary distance. Obviously most people here probably want it to be the minimum possible, but I think most would also prefer not to be in a near miss situation, let alone an actual collision. The more nuance and pilot discretion they can provide for smaller/less frequently used airfields up to major airports the better, IMHO, but at least if it's based on actual data that RC pilots can understand why they are what they are that is going to make it much harder to argue against if you also want to claim to be a responsible RC pilot.
Being a new member I'm reserved in my opinion, but all I can say is that "drones" seem to be frowned upon more and more by the general public as a result of this kind of publicity. If this was indeed someone flying near the airport, such a person is really giving a push to my perception of the general public seeing drones seen as unwanted. If there was no drone, then this publicity is really unwanted towards the general acceptance of drones. My view is, that we as drone pilots needs to continually take the highest responsibility when flying and continuously publish our responsible actions when flying (whenever possible)
The general reaction I get when I mention that I'm flying a drone, is not one of acceptance. Not sure, but like I said in the beginning of this post, the general public, not knowing better is negatively influenced by every incident where drones are implicated. LETS NOT BE PART OF NEGATIVE NEWS OF DRONES.
Any more views on this?
The general reaction I get when I mention that I'm flying a drone, is not one of acceptance. Not sure, but like I said in the beginning of this post, the general public, not knowing better is negatively influenced by every incident where drones are implicated. LETS NOT BE PART OF NEGATIVE NEWS OF DRONES.
Any more views on this?
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Can a DJI Drone Purchased in China be Used in the USA- Started by Greatsign1
- Replies: 6
-
Help please!! Mavic isnt connecting to controller wont bind!!
- Started by Connorkingdomofmii
- Replies: 1
-
-
Forum statistics
