Gatwick incident thread .Please resume in this one .

[FoxhallGH]

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?

Couldn't agree more ... and here is an ideal way to do that ... see this thread: Drone Flyers in the UK - share your stories with the Guardian

 

[zocalo]

Here we go again... LHR this time.

 

[gnirtS]

Driving along the M25.... Nearly all of that is more than 1km from the fence which highlights the current laws issue. Its very hard to tell where a drone actually is over from the ground and the 1km distance reuirement is tiny - it could have been more than that from the fence (or not).

That said, 1705z time im guessing its dark there so any flight would be illegal.

 

[Congoblue]

That said, 1705z time im guessing its dark there so any flight would be illegal.

It's currently allowed to fly in the dark in UK as long as you keep VLOS.

 

[Prmath]

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.

Agree...... Very sensible

 

[4wd]

Since it turned out to be a foam model plane being given a quick test by new owner, I think the 'sightings' of hovering lights were once again not drones at all.

 

[zocalo]

Another update today, presumably prompted by yesterday's regulation update from the CAA (discussion thread).

Latest is basically that they now feel that it was an inside job, possibly by a disgruntled employee, because they believe the pilot knew the airport well enough to dodge between buildings to avoid detection. (Not that all that information couldn't be obtained by doing your homework on Google Maps satellite view, mind).

Other bits: Police claim they *do* have footage of the drone(s), but it's of too poor quality to be definitive and they've decided not to release it, although some of the articles do include previous alleged footage. There's also a ban on phones in the control tower, which is why there is no clear footage of the alleged incident where the drone hovered right next to the tower. All this is supposedly backed up by the previously reported 130+ sightings of the drone, with the additional clarification that 109 of these were made by credible witnesses such as airport staff and police.

Various media coverage, each with slightly different details/quotes, etc:

Daily Mail
Evening Standard
The Sun
The Times (registration required)

 

[DroningOn]

But this guy said he saw the drone.... he swears! ;-)

 

[zocalo]

But this guy said he saw the drone.... he swears! ;-)

Fortunately there isn't a drone version of This Person Does Not Exist (yet?), or we'd be inundated with deepfakes.

 

[Kokopelli633]

Another update today, presumably prompted by yesterday's regulation update from the CAA (discussion thread).

Latest is basically that they now feel that it was an inside job, possibly by a disgruntled employee, because they believe the pilot knew the airport well enough to dodge between buildings to avoid detection. (Not that all that information couldn't be obtained by doing your homework on Google Maps satellite view, mind).

Other bits: Police claim they *do* have footage of the drone(s), but it's of too poor quality to be definitive and they've decided not to release it, although some of the articles do include previous alleged footage. There's also a ban on phones in the control tower, which is why there is no clear footage of the alleged incident where the drone hovered right next to the tower. All this is supposedly backed up by the previously reported 130+ sightings of the drone, with the additional clarification that 109 of these were made by credible witnesses such as airport staff and police.

Various media coverage, each with slightly different details/quotes, etc:

Daily Mail
Evening Standard
The Sun
The Times (registration required)

So in summary a new bunch of claims, no proof and some seriously badly written pieces in the UK Rags, personaly I'd give more attach more credibility to an unknown bloke down the pub than to anything put out by the shambles that is our Police Farce