Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sir Tigger KC on 20 December 2018, 00:28:38

Title: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 20 December 2018, 00:28:38
Did no one tell Dr G that he can't play with his drone during his tea break?  ???  :o  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 01:06:01
Wasn't me...  ::)

Not sure quite what is going on tbh :-\
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 02:45:53
I suspect that it is a coordinated and planned 'attack' designed to cause maximum disruption in light of the recent application to use the Northern Runway simultaneously...

The local anti runway sandal wearers are a devious bunch...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lazydocker on 20 December 2018, 08:15:21
I suspect that it is a coordinated and planned 'attack' designed to cause maximum disruption in light of the recent application to use the Northern Runway simultaneously...

The local anti runway sandal wearers are a devious bunch...

I suspect you’re possibly right. NIMBYs are a selfish lot.

I hope the police have some luck in tracking the culprits down and charge them for the costs of the disruption as well as the criminal charges. Bunch of selfish idiots.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 20 December 2018, 08:27:41
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 08:30:40
A bit of an own goal as well... Once flying resumes, it will probably mean constant traffic right around to this time tomorrow as all the aircraft come back, (lunchtime onwards most likely) and start playing catch up with todays flights.

Those responsible should be taken through the terminals to see just what effect their actions have had on thousands of people. With the recent legislation changes, they can expect to do five years for each incursion.  >:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 20 December 2018, 08:33:23
HMPS now has their own drones to deal with the items that are dropped/ flown into establishments, should bring a bit of excitement to the workplace 😀
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 08:34:23
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Currently have a selection of rifles and shotguns, ostensibly for wildlife management purposes, but I suspect that this event will see the acquisition of something more sophisticated...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 20 December 2018, 09:36:14
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Currently have a selection of rifles and shotguns, ostensibly for wildlife management purposes, but I suspect that this event will see the acquisition of something more sophisticated...

Apparently the Police won't attempt to shoot the drones down for safety reasons.  ???

I think most people would think "Just shoot the bastards down so we can get our flight!"   ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 20 December 2018, 09:59:30
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Currently have a selection of rifles and shotguns, ostensibly for wildlife management purposes, but I suspect that this event will see the acquisition of something more sophisticated...

Apparently the Police won't attempt to shoot the drones down for safety reasons.  ???

I think most people would think "Just shoot the bastards down so we can get our flight!"   ;D

Can't see how it can possibly be any less safe than shooting at anything else, TBH. Any potential "safety issue" is with the shooter rather than the shootee, surely? ::)

Either this "drone" has a ruddy long endurance or it's a coordinated attack by quite a few and there's lots of LiPo charging going on somewhere.

Hmm. TheBoy has been quiet lately... :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 10:07:38
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Currently have a selection of rifles and shotguns, ostensibly for wildlife management purposes, but I suspect that this event will see the acquisition of something more sophisticated...

Apparently the Police won't attempt to shoot the drones down for safety reasons.  ???

I think most people would think "Just shoot the bastards down so we can get our flight!"   ;D
That's pretty much the concensus on Twitter at the moment. Shooting them down now it's daylight should be a forgone conclusion, but allowing them to fly increases the chance of a successful prosecution. After all, the bulk of the disruption has already happened... I wouldn't be at all surprised if flights are canned for the day to enable the situation to be fully resolved, with the displaced aircraft being returned to Gatwick overnight ready for a clean start tomorrow.

I suspect that the idiots involved are swapping batteries whilst moving location, thereby avoiding detection and enabling the sustained disruption. And as they're clearly organised, it stands to reason they are running shifts.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 10:24:37
Idiots wasn't my choice of word  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 20 December 2018, 13:33:09
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Currently have a selection of rifles and shotguns, ostensibly for wildlife management purposes, but I suspect that this event will see the acquisition of something more sophisticated...

Apparently the Police won't attempt to shoot the drones down for safety reasons.  ???

I think most people would think "Just shoot the bastards down so we can get our flight!"   ;D

Can't see how it can possibly be any less safe than shooting at anything else, TBH. Any potential "safety issue" is with the shooter rather than the shootee, surely? ::)

Either this "drone" has a ruddy long endurance or it's a coordinated attack by quite a few and there's lots of LiPo charging going on somewhere.

Hmm. TheBoy has been quiet lately... :-X

I wonder if he had a delayed flight or similar there recently ?  :-\ ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 20 December 2018, 14:10:42
How lng before airports etc have their own seek and destroy drones?
Currently have a selection of rifles and shotguns, ostensibly for wildlife management purposes, but I suspect that this event will see the acquisition of something more sophisticated...

Apparently the Police won't attempt to shoot the drones down for safety reasons.  ???

I think most people would think "Just shoot the bastards down so we can get our flight!"   ;D

Can't see how it can possibly be any less safe than shooting at anything else, TBH. Any potential "safety issue" is with the shooter rather than the shootee, surely? ::)

Either this "drone" has a ruddy long endurance or it's a coordinated attack by quite a few and there's lots of LiPo charging going on somewhere.

Hmm. TheBoy has been quiet lately... :-X

I wonder if he had a delayed flight or similar there recently ?  :-\ ;D
Surely not. We're looking for the type of personality who'll readily blow a gasket and let out Mr. Angry when subjected to a minor inconvenience by a service industry, or printer driver, here. Actually, now you mention it... :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 20 December 2018, 15:30:35
News says police marksmen are at the scene. Ideally they should be at the scene of the houses of whoever owns the drones.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Gaffers on 20 December 2018, 15:35:19
News says police marksmen are at the scene. Ideally they should be at the scene of the houses of whoever owns the drones.

I can understand them not using bullets to shoot these things down, but a 12 guage with suitably small sized pellets will reduce the effective danger range enough to bring down the drone and not cause issues beyond the firing zone.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: scimmy_man on 20 December 2018, 15:39:18
as long as its near enough, a shotgun isnt much good over about 60 yards.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Shackeng on 20 December 2018, 16:17:52
as long as its near enough, a shotgun isnt much good over about 60 yards.

There are weapons that have limited range that would fit the bill. Sorry, if I tell you I'll have to kill you.  :-X :-X :-X:y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 20 December 2018, 16:45:58
Dr Gollum needs to go and as his boss for one of these little beauties. Does he want to be the driver or weapons operator? 8) 8) 8)

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/21/us-army-successfully-demos-laser-weapon-on-stryker-in-europe/ (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/21/us-army-successfully-demos-laser-weapon-on-stryker-in-europe/)

The orange badges on the side in the photo of the vehicle are the drones it has taken out. :y :y :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 17:02:02
News says police marksmen are at the scene. Ideally they should be at the scene of the houses of whoever owns the drones.
That made I chuckle... There's routinely a selection of MP5s wandering around... ::)

The trouble with randomly shooting at a drone is presumably the operators can watch what is happening in the vicinity of the drone... a quick shimmy is probably enough to dodge the worst of anything aimed at it. Emptying a magazine at it from the ground would inevitably result in showering something or someone with bullets.  ::)

Also tracking one is presumably complicated by a combination of speed and maneuverability... If no one has sight of it when it dissappears/returns, then it would be almost impossible to follow. Oh and now it's dark again...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 17:07:41
Dr Gollum needs to go and as his boss for one of these little beauties. Does he want to be the driver or weapons operator? 8) 8) 8)

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/21/us-army-successfully-demos-laser-weapon-on-stryker-in-europe/ (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/21/us-army-successfully-demos-laser-weapon-on-stryker-in-europe/)

The orange badges on the side in the photo of the vehicle are the drones it has taken out. :y :y :y
The firm that currently keeps me busy couldn't micromanage the continuous supply of sticky labels... (let alone chicken :-X), but if they need someone to have a go, I would gladly step up to use that  8)

What could possibly go wrong :D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 20 December 2018, 17:12:02
In some countries they have been training birds of prey to take out drones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAYVyj6vf3Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAYVyj6vf3Y)

It seems this country is wholly unprepared compared to many. Signal jamming is another method & iirc the French have been experimenting with fired small nets
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 20 December 2018, 17:26:10
Hmm. TheBoy has been quiet lately... :-X
Counted my stash of multicopters (drone is any unmanned flying machine) and Lipos, and am only missing a small toy one...   ...which I know is in the office at work


I'm sure there will be a demand to ban quadcopters, as a kneejerk.  The rules are clear enough, and good enough, so we don't need that, but I'm sure the mainstream media will hound for it, despite so badly getting their facts wrong on the rules.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 20 December 2018, 17:31:17
I'm perfectly capable of crashing without being shot...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwcAHrZZBx4

Launch is at 19s, all over by 27s
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 20 December 2018, 17:36:50
And to understand how ninble they can be....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yASitlzLQ2Q

(Note, this footage was taken before the 400' height limit for multicopters came in in July)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 20 December 2018, 18:14:44
They've called Private Pike in.  :y

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 20 December 2018, 18:17:38
They've called Private Pike in.  :y
It's another embarrassment, isn't it? Foreign travellers, speaking on the news, were incredulous. So am I.  :-[
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 20 December 2018, 18:38:04
Im wondering if theres more to this than meets the eye ? blackmail, terrorism...………..?  :-\
If it was just a matter of getting rid of a couple of drones wouldn't it be done & dusted by now ?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 20 December 2018, 18:44:05
I'm surprised that this hasn't spread to other big airports yet as there are idiots out there who would think that this is a right old laugh.  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 20 December 2018, 19:18:16
Just waiting for someone on the News to link Brexit to the drone . How about a conspiracy theory - drone organised by soft Brexit supporters!

How would a training course and licence help? Having a legal gun doesntstop a nutter in the USA from killing people in a mass shooting.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 20 December 2018, 19:35:15
This may have something to do with the protests against Gatwick expansion. Maybe some one, or group of nutters, have decided to take direct action.

Obviously this is one of a number of possibilities.  Whoever they are they must be imprisoned for longer than the present maximum sentence of 5 years.  They will get caught as I am sure all levels of the security services are on this one. >:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 20 December 2018, 20:16:02
They are taking their time  ;D

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 20 December 2018, 20:22:11
They will get caught as I am sure all levels of the security services are on this one. >:(
Only if they are very stupid.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 20 December 2018, 20:36:04
They will get caught as I am sure all levels of the security services are on this one. >:(
Only if they are very stupid.

I think TB they have proved to be that already.  A person can muck around in the everyday sense with authority, but to take on all the agencies, including I am sure MI5 as this has become a national security issue, is just plain dumb. If that is not the case and it IS perhaps more sinister, like a foreign involvement (I will let Rod assess the rest!) then this incident will not be the end of the matter.  Apart from the embarrassment caused to our nation, and the distress caused to so many passengers, what is the financial cost of this to our country and it's industry?

So if this is down to one or two nutters they have been very stupid. ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: biggriffin on 20 December 2018, 20:46:57
Is flying another drone at it(kamaksai) drone. Or is that to easy. Or an rc plane.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 20 December 2018, 20:49:35
Oh, yes, the people behind it are incredibly irresponsible. And stupid in certain regards. And need stringing up/shot/culled/etc

But it would be reasonably easy to evade the authorities, especially as the authorities (clearly) are too stupid to do anything about it.  But, in their defence, they are civil servants. Even me - the stupid kid from the local comprehensive - could run rings round them for ages, and keep the airport closed.  The only effective counter measure is to bring each device down, but I could just send up another, and another, and another, and so on.


I doubt its a foreign power behind it. Because you'd hit multiple airports, particularly Heathrow. So that leaves a Swampy type tree hugger, or somebody who plans on 15 mins of fame using a fake social media account.  I'm leaning towards the latter, but who knows, and I suspect we will never find who.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 20 December 2018, 20:52:46
Is flying another drone at it(kamaksai) drone. Or is that to easy. Or an rc plane.
Depends on how manoeuvrable the invading quad is, and if its actually being flown, or flying autonomously.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Mister Rog on 20 December 2018, 21:29:54

This all serves to reinforce my ever increasing avoidance/dislike of flying . . . .
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 20 December 2018, 22:08:19
I suspect these boys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG2UW2nYBQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG2UW2nYBQQ)

On a serious note, if quadcopters are now cheap enough that you can throw hundreds of them at something, then all you need to do is plant a shedload of them in the fields around an airport and, each time it looks like it's in danger of opening, send another one up to fly up and down the runway trolling them until the battery gets low, then return to its field, all without any interaction or wireless comms needed beyond the initial "go".

You then get a dog walker to case the field with a Li-Po in his pocket. If the location hasn't been compromised, a quick battery swap and it's ready to go again. Repeat until bored.

They'll be better off looking for the flurry of digital comms that was used to coordinate this than to try following the drones or looking for the pilots, although that's probably well hidden in the dark web if they're thorough.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Andy H on 20 December 2018, 22:51:58
I suspect these boys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG2UW2nYBQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG2UW2nYBQQ)

On a serious note, if quadcopters are now cheap enough that you can throw hundreds of them at something, then all you need to do is plant a shedload of them in the fields around an airport and, each time it looks like it's in danger of opening, send another one up to fly up and down the runway trolling them until the battery gets low, then return to its field, all without any interaction or wireless comms needed beyond the initial "go".

You then get a dog walker to case the field with a Li-Po in his pocket. If the location hasn't been compromised, a quick battery swap and it's ready to go again. Repeat until bored.

They'll be better off looking for the flurry of digital comms that was used to coordinate this than to try following the drones or looking for the pilots, although that's probably well hidden in the dark web if they're thorough.
What do drones use for comms? (I assume they use a 3G mobile phone signal :-\)

Could the mobile operators be forced to switch off their 3G?

The local residents might whinge and would have to rely on old fashioned copper for their internet, not sure what the 10,000 passengers stuck in the terminals would use - does Gatwick have guest WiFi  :-\
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 20 December 2018, 23:17:33
There's some talk of completely closing the airport tomorrow  :-\
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 20 December 2018, 23:45:24
Its a pretty safe bet that this will bring about new legislation on drones which will make life difficult for responsible owners and do far call to prevent it happening again.  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 20 December 2018, 23:55:46
You mean likegun control in the USA stops murders?

I dare say all UK airports will have to have anti drone measures which will be passed onto the consumers in even higher parking charges or fees.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 21 December 2018, 00:03:51
24 hours later the police are now saying that they will shoot the drones down if it's safe to do so....  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 21 December 2018, 00:23:28
search for the Litchi app & use it with the DGI models :y
Jamming the signal won`t kill the drone if it`s flying a waypoint mission
You can place multiple waypoints on a map, however far you want and the aircraft will fly from waypoint to waypoint and complete the mission even if the signal is lost.

The app dispays mission progress, next waypoint to fly ; next POI etc
The end mission directive is multiple, go home or reverse fly the mission, land or just hover
Yoo can also program it to  fly straight lines between waypoinys or curved & fly the next leg without loitering.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 07:26:15
Tentatively open :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 21 December 2018, 08:12:43
An absolute ridiculous situation when there are methods that could have put this to an immediate end , as usual UK has no balls.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 21 December 2018, 09:03:16
Had to laugh

Reading some background on bbc website  Distances in km rather than miles.  Heights in metres rather  than yards. When did the UK change ?  There would be an outrage if yards and miles were used here in Spain !
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 21 December 2018, 09:08:31
I went to school in the 80s and 90s - height was always measured in metres.

So I guess about 30 years ago, Varche ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Mister Rog on 21 December 2018, 09:13:04
I went to school in the 80s and 90s - height was always measured in metres.

So I guess about 30 years ago, Varche ;)

Had a very confused conversation with local butcher when I went to order a turkey. He was talking pounds, I was talking Kilograms. I almost ordered a VERY small turkey. Welcome to Wales  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 21 December 2018, 09:23:20
 ;D ;D But your face, come collection, when your turkey turned out to be a quail would have been a picture!
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 21 December 2018, 11:03:34
;D ;D But your face, come collection, when your turkey turned out to be an ostrich would have been a picture!

Fixed that!  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 21 December 2018, 11:47:33
I went to school in the 80s and 90s - height was always measured in metres.

So I guess about 30 years ago, Varche ;)

May well have been. I have a couple of tape measures in metric and imperial. Handy to take into diy stores here as it is obviously your own. Iuse both but nevermixthe two. Funnily enough the Spanish have to use imperial for some rhings here. Putting aside tyre measurements, the other obvious legacy of British ndustrial revolution is the continued use of inches for pipework.

The article had obviously been converted laboriously from imperial into metric e.g. one country had a drone exclusion zone of 5.6 km ( 3 and a half miles at a guess).
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 21 December 2018, 11:55:45
I went to school in the 80s and 90s - height was always measured in metres.

So I guess about 30 years ago, Varche ;)


Whippersnapper.

In my day, during the reign of Queen Vicky, we used pounds, shillings and pence. Miles and yards and addition of fractions.''''1/8 plus 3/16 etc...etc.

To show how times have changed there was not a single black kid during my time at school.

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 21 December 2018, 11:56:55
To show how times have changed there was not a single black kid during my time at school.

I went to school in rural Yorkshire .. I don't think there was in mine, either  :o
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 21 December 2018, 12:04:12
To show how times have changed there was not a single black kid during my time at school.

I went to school in rural Yorkshire .. I don't think there was in mine, either  :o

As people from Yorkshire don't like people from outside Yorkshire, and don't tend to visit places that are not part of Yorkshire, the gene pool will be quite restrictive.

Think the 'Norfolk of the North'
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lazydocker on 21 December 2018, 12:11:02
To show how times have changed there was not a single black kid during my time at school.

I went to school in rural Yorkshire .. I don't think there was in mine, either  :o

As people from Yorkshire don't like people from outside Yorkshire, and don't tend to visit places that are not part of Yorkshire, the gene pool will be quite restrictive.

Think the 'Norfolk of the North'

 ;D ;D :D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 21 December 2018, 12:57:30
I had the webbing removed, though, so you can barely tell. :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 21 December 2018, 12:59:32
I had the webbing removed, though, so you can barely tell. :y

......get rid of the banjo.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Andy B on 21 December 2018, 13:06:23
Had to laugh

Reading some background on bbc website  Distances in km rather than miles.  Heights in metres rather  than yards. When did the UK change ?  There would be an outrage if yards and miles were used here in Spain !

The BBC can't make its mind up. I see loads of programmes where they talk about a few meter tall or even so many hundred meters away but then say that something is so many miles away. I wish they'd use one or the other.

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 21 December 2018, 13:13:33
Had to laugh

Reading some background on bbc website  Distances in km rather than miles.  Heights in metres rather  than yards. When did the UK change ?  There would be an outrage if yards and miles were used here in Spain !

The BBC can't make its mind up. I see loads of programmes where they talk about a few meter tall or even so many hundred meters away but then say that something is so many miles away. I wish they'd use one or the other.
Our local weather forecaster still gives the temperature in °F and °C.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Andy B on 21 December 2018, 13:24:39
....
Our local weather forecaster still gives the temperature in °F and °C.

Temp is another that we use different scales at different times ..... papers will quote .... Phew! it's in the 80/90's  but then say that we're in a winter cold spell of -10

It does surprise me that youngsters at work haven't a clue what the freezing point or boiling point of water is in F  ???
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 21 December 2018, 14:39:36
You mean likegun control in the USA stops murders?

I dare say all UK airports will have to have anti drone measures which will be passed onto the consumers in even higher parking charges or fees.

Yesterday I heard it being reported that Heathrow is protected by some counter-drone measures but Gatwick is not.  That is another reason why I think Gatwick has been the target this time.

Did anyone else hear the ridiculous interviews on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 this morning when he was taking the approach that the drones could have been put into the sky at Gatwick as a protest against the pollution that planes produce taking people on cheap trips to the likes of Lapland?!!

He did emphasise that no-one yet knew what the motives were behind the forced closing of Gatwick for 30 hours, but on national radio he was airing the possibilities that someone may have good reason to do so to save the world from global warming!!  The language I was shouting at the radio cannot be repeated here, but to say I was fuming is an understatement, over this garbage when instead he should be discussing how on earth can nutters close a national airport and what the politicians are going to do about it!!

Recently we have been discussing how the media are exaggerating and inflating the news for their own journalistic aims, and here we go again with the BBC and Jeremy Whine!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 21 December 2018, 15:39:55
Might have been more appropriate to discuss how poor we are at crisis management.

Airlines duck the issue of responsibility

Airport fails to tell folk what is going on

Yes it is difficult to find hotel beds, food, blankets but Britain is not a tin pot third world country ( except perhaps in The Boys eyes!). How difficult is it to bus/train affected customers to a different airport and operate from there?

Deja vu. Didnt we have this a few weeks back on the railways......
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 16:02:50
You say that LZ, but one knob head on Twitter made comment about how 10,000 people who would enjoy the first day of peace and quiet in decades >:(

Completely ignoring the 110,000 displaced passengers, 4-5,000 crews and all the people who had to put up with extra flights at their airports and the operation consequences of all of the above...

Somebody else put him straight back into his parents basement  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 16:16:45
Might have been more appropriate to discuss how poor we are at crisis management.

Airlines duck the issue of responsibility

Airport fails to tell folk what is going on

Yes it is difficult to find hotel beds, food, blankets but Britain is not a tin pot third world country ( except perhaps in The Boys eyes!). How difficult is it to bus/train affected customers to a different airport and operate from there?

Deja vu. Didnt we have this a few weeks back on the railways......
It's all well and good saying that Snr V, but how long does it take to get 110,000+ extra seats into the system?

Once the scale of the problem was clear, rail firms and National Express were doing what they could, Easyjet staff were still doing their best to rearrange passengers at 10pm last night, seen first hand, and the airport itself brings in a number of office staff to help support the operational terminal teams, many of them started at 3 am yesterday, a mere six hours after the situation kicked off. Incidentally this was around the time that the first diverted passengers began to arrive back at Gatwick in coaches.

The biggest problem is that with the potential to resume flights, it is prudent to keep passengers on aircraft for as long as that crew can legally work. That way the aircraft is ready to go rather than wasting a couple of hours trying to round everyone up to reboard.

Trouble is everyone is so quick to judge and moan about these situations from a position of complete ignorance that they don't have any idea as to the implications of what they are suggesting. These situations bring out the best and worst of human nature, and sadly you only see the negative stuff in the headlines...

On of the first flights to leave this morning was one of the seasonal Lapland runs.  8)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 16:18:21
Case in point...

Check out @GatwickExpress’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/GatwickExpress/status/1076033446659665920?s=09 ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: ronnyd on 21 December 2018, 17:41:22
Didn,t height values used to be measured in feet back in the day? ???
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 21 December 2018, 17:43:06
It's back!

Gatwick closed again due to 'suspected drone sighting'....  ::)

Suspected?  ???  Either someone's seen the bloody thing or not!  :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 21 December 2018, 17:45:39
It's back!

Gatwick closed again due to 'suspected drone sighting'....  ::)

Suspected?  ???  Either someone's seen the bloody thing or not!  :-X
.


Someone is going to end up doing a stretch, and much deserved messing with peoples lives .
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 21 December 2018, 17:47:12
Great opportunity for them to implement Varche contingency planning.

Or duck and dive to minimise impact on bottom lines.

Let s wait and see.........
.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 21 December 2018, 17:50:12
It's back!

Gatwick closed again due to 'suspected drone sighting'....  ::)

Suspected?  ???  Either someone's seen the bloody thing or not!  :-X
.


Someone is going to end up doing a stretch, and much deserved messing with peoples lives .
He wants his f*uckin neck stretching.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 21 December 2018, 17:57:23
LZ - serves you right for listening to that self-centred, thick, cumstain of a idiot.  He's fallen into the Daily Fail mentality of trying to encourage outrage is a good thing (for him).

Varche - We act like we are a 3rd world country.  A bit of snow, we can't cope. A bit of rain, we can't cope. A small flying machine potentially in the flightline, we can't cope.  I think this is 2 fold, firstly, our civil service is crap and useless at all levels; secondly, we have bred a whole generation (probably 2) of incompetent, self centred mongrels, with the 'flakes on the way as well.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 21 December 2018, 18:00:04
LZ - serves you right for listening to that self-centred, thick, cumstain of a idiot.  He's fallen into the Daily Fail mentality of trying to encourage outrage is a good thing (for him).

Varche - We act like we are a 3rd world country.  A bit of snow, we can't cope. A bit of rain, we can't cope. A small flying machine potentially in the flightline, we can't cope.  I think this is 2 fold, firstly, our civil service is crap and useless at all levels; secondly, we have bred a whole generation (probably 2) of incompetent, self centred mongrels, with the 'flakes on the way as well.
A few of many, many reasons there.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 21 December 2018, 18:05:13
Cant disagree..

How many business models build in contingencies.? If you do other companies not doing so would be morecompetitive.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 18:52:06
It's back!

Gatwick closed again due to 'suspected drone sighting'....  ::)

Suspected?  ???  Either someone's seen the bloody thing or not!  :-X
.


Someone is going to end up doing a stretch, and much deserved messing with peoples lives .
I would gladly drag the tunc through the departure lounge  >:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 18:53:19
There are contingencies, but you have to be realistic about implementation times ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 21 December 2018, 19:02:21
Cant disagree..

How many business models build in contingencies.? If you do other companies not doing so would be morecompetitive.
I've spent the last 3 weeks working on de-risking an already unlikely, but far from impossible, scenario over the next 2 weeks ;)

And outside of work, I spend a lot of time building in contingencies to keep you OOFers happy (ie oblivious to failures).


So I think many do, and many people work for companies that do, hence so much frustration when they're impacted by companies that haven't got contingency plans for something you could almost guarantee would happen...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 21 December 2018, 19:33:30
LZ - serves you right for listening to that self-centred, thick, cumstain of a idiot.  He's fallen into the Daily Fail mentality of trying to encourage outrage is a good thing (for him).

Varche - We act like we are a 3rd world country.  A bit of snow, we can't cope. A bit of rain, we can't cope. A small flying machine potentially in the flightline, we can't cope.  I think this is 2 fold, firstly, our civil service is crap and useless at all levels; secondly, we have bred a whole generation (probably 2) of incompetent, self centred mongrels, with the 'flakes on the way as well.

Say it as it is TB ;D :y

I was only listening today as I had to take a male friend to London.  Believe me once I had my fill of that prat I soon turned on the CD player! ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 21 December 2018, 19:44:30
You say that LZ, but one knob head on Twitter made comment about how 10,000 people who would enjoy the first day of peace and quiet in decades >:(

Completely ignoring the 110,000 displaced passengers, 4-5,000 crews and all the people who had to put up with extra flights at their airports and the operation consequences of all of the above...

Somebody else put him straight back into his parents basement  ;D

Yes, it is all about the interests of the few DG.

On our local news over the last few days there has been an item on an ex-military base where they wanted to build thousands of new homes.  But now the application to build just 500 is struggling to get through due to environmentalists wanting to protect a few birds, even though the development will allow for them anyway. So, instead of thousands being able to be homed when housing is impossibly short and expensive in the SE, a few will get their wish to protect a few of our feathered friends. Bloody grazy >:(

Back to the Gatwick fiasco;  they didn't shoot the bloody drones down due to a risk to the public on the ground.  Do you think the Battle of Britain would have been allowed to take place with the risk element of people on the ground being killed, or would we now just say to Nazi Germany,  "sorry old boy but we cannot join the fight due to the risk to our people"!  FFS, what have we become!!  >:(>:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 21 December 2018, 19:52:32
Drones are a well known problem & have been for sometime. Many countries have developed counter measures, some of which are more easily defeated than others. The problem is not only at the company level where costs are cut too far to keep the directors bonuses share dividends flowing. Far too many people and companies fail to recognise the difference between what you can do and what you should do with banks and financial institution being a regular emperor with no clothes on when the financial tide goes out as an example.

Why am I not surprised it was Gatfick Gatwick? Cheaper to have one comms link for all flight displays, what could possibly go wrong? Gives a clue. ::) ::) ::)

The other big problem are our politicians which I hope where Westminster will change from acting like a village council that they now have to earn their living (rather than most of the month spent on creatively fiddling their expenses) where they can now longer put most problems in the EU out tray to make them go away, but will now have to run (or not, until the next GE), where we can have a clear out of the duffers & misfits. BTW Anna Sozbury's expenses were almost £200k, which again IME the worse and ineffective an MP is the bigger their annual expenses. >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Shackeng on 21 December 2018, 19:57:07
Cant disagree..

How many business models build in contingencies.? If you do other companies not doing so would be morecompetitive.
I've spent the last 3 weeks working on de-risking an already unlikely, but far from impossible, scenario over the next 2 weeks ;)

And outside of work, I spend a lot of time building in contingencies to keep you OOFers happy (ie oblivious to failures).


So I think many do, and many people work for companies that do, hence so much frustration when they're impacted by companies that haven't got contingency plans for something you could almost guarantee would happen...

FT4U :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 21 December 2018, 20:12:18
Drones are a well known problem & have been for sometime. Many countries have developed counter measures, some of which are more easily defeated than others.


Amoungst a number of statements made today in the media is that the military have installed equipment in strategic locations around the airport which has given Gatwick management confidence to start flights again. The "unique capabilities" of the army was mentioned by the minister for defence, so if this is that why can't that equipment be used all the time?  On the news it was mentioned that the use of these gadgets would not normally be authorised, but these special measures had to be used to combat a special problem.

What is all this about, and why has Gatwick missed out on having the special anti drone equipment that Heathrow has?

The minister stated he couldn't discuss all the elements of this stuff for reasons of national security [The Official Secrets Act?].

Any observations please, but do not comment if you are in breach of the Act ;D ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: ronnyd on 21 December 2018, 20:20:20
Open again i have just read.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 21 December 2018, 20:43:47
Drones are a well known problem & have been for sometime. Many countries have developed counter measures, some of which are more easily defeated than others.


Amoungst a number of statements made today in the media is that the military have installed equipment in strategic locations around the airport which has given Gatwick management confidence to start flights again. The "unique capabilities" of the army was mentioned by the minister for defence, so if this is that why can't that equipment be used all the time?  On the news it was mentioned that the use of these gadgets would not normally be authorised, but these special measures had to be used to combat a special problem.

What is all this about, and why has Gatwick missed out on having the special anti drone equipment that Heathrow has?

The minister stated he couldn't discuss all the elements of this stuff for reasons of national security [The Official Secrets Act?].

Any observations please, but do not comment if you are in breach of the Act ;D ;)

Where drones are used for frontline reconnaissance in war, with the Russian army having integrated intelligence sections attached to all forward units, the military need special equipment to defeat them. Ukraine has found out the hard way, through casualties, how quickly the Russians can spot and react with MLRS, artillery and sniper fire when any troops are exposed when on patrols etc. Ukrainians on the frontline have frequently commented that you are more likely to hear rather than see the drone that has clocked you, followed by a rain of fire.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 21 December 2018, 22:53:56
Drones are a well known problem & have been for sometime. Many countries have developed counter measures, some of which are more easily defeated than others. The problem is not only at the company level where costs are cut too far to keep the directors bonuses share dividends flowing. Far too many people and companies fail to recognise the difference between what you can do and what you should do with banks and financial institution being a regular emperor with no clothes on when the financial tide goes out as an example.

Why am I not surprised it was Gatfick Gatwick? Cheaper to have one comms link for all flight displays, what could possibly go wrong? Gives a clue. ::) ::) ::)

The other big problem are our politicians which I hope where Westminster will change from acting like a village council that they now have to earn their living (rather than most of the month spent on creatively fiddling their expenses) where they can now longer put most problems in the EU out tray to make them go away, but will now have to run (or not, until the next GE), where we can have a clear out of the duffers & misfits. BTW Anna Sozbury's expenses were almost £200k, which again IME the worse and ineffective an MP is the bigger their annual expenses. >:( >:( >:(
FYI

Gatwick, and all airports, take their safeguarding responsibilities incredibly seriously. They have to. As part of the safeguarding systems, the issue of drones is not new and the airport has taken steps to address the perceived threat from drones. Unfortunately in this situation, which is clearly a deliberate attack, the measures to prevent irresponsible but otherwise non malicious incursions have been proven to fall short of the current situation.

I really cannot say any more than that Airfield Operations are continuously doing everything within their powers to maintain a safe aerodrome.

An overreaction to a seemingly simple problem? Perhaps,
but the consequences of not doing enough are unthinkable.

Try and politicise it as much as you like, but at the end of the day, there is nothing more to this than a repeated, unauthorised incursion.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 21 December 2018, 23:58:57
Could it be a hologram?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 22 December 2018, 00:32:12
Could it be a hologram?
Stop heading the news/social media claptrap...

Walking around the accessible parts of the airport, you can't actually see that much of the critical area, let alone spotting something the size of a cat...

An insight...

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=576
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Raeturbo on 22 December 2018, 00:53:36
Why can’t the signal be jammed? HMS Duncan warned Russian jets that they were flying a bit near and the ships radar could interfere with their electronics and fetch them down. (Sounded like a veiled threat to me).
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 22 December 2018, 01:00:32
Why can’t the signal be jammed? HMS Duncan warned Russian jets that they were flying a bit near and the ships radar could interfere with their electronics and fetch them down. (Sounded like a veiled threat to me).

Could be a bit tricky getting a Type 45 Destroyer to Gatwick in time though?  :-\   ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Raeturbo on 22 December 2018, 01:10:32
Ha ha :) technology is there though.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 22 December 2018, 01:13:34
Why can’t the signal be jammed? HMS Duncan warned Russian jets that they were flying a bit near and the ships radar could interfere with their electronics and fetch them down. (Sounded like a veiled threat to me).
As already highlighted, if it's flying a preprogrammed sortie, then there's no signal to jam...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 22 December 2018, 01:29:07
Also, if it was genuinely that easy, it would be no more of an issue than a faulty tissue...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 22 December 2018, 01:52:10
Also, if it was genuinely that easy, it would be no more of an issue than a faulty tissue...

This is a completely unprecedented situation and the systems in place were perhaps not geared up to such an attack... I distinctly recall the initial impact of the liquid bomb threat in 2006, (I was working the preceding night shift... Ended up being allowed to leave four hours past my shift end when they finally allowed staff into work)... The threat had always been a possibility, but one so dastardly that no one had dared thought it possible, hence the apparent surprise.

Naivety is not a crime of neglect, rather an ilinformed perspective.

Ultimately sentinel drones will probably become the mandated norm for runway protection... Not too far removed from Terminator territory.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: BazaJT on 22 December 2018, 08:42:16
Apparently they're now reporting that two people have been arrested,hopefully they will prove to be the culprits and if so then made an example of.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 22 December 2018, 09:04:00
Apparently they're now reporting that two people have been arrested,hopefully they will prove to be the culprits and if so then made an example of.
CAUGHT RED HANDED
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49017760_10161182231055254_2955250349360807936_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=49f25645945e4f659bc562282f64c5d6&oe=5CA474CB)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Raeturbo on 22 December 2018, 10:59:32
Why can’t the signal be jammed? HMS Duncan warned Russian jets that they were flying a bit near and the ships radar could interfere with their electronics and fetch them down. (Sounded like a veiled threat to me).
As already highlighted, if it's flying a preprogrammed sortie, then there's no signal to jam...
                 Ahh, of course.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 22 December 2018, 11:23:58
Of course it can be jammed , technology is there just needs the authorisation.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 22 December 2018, 11:29:34
Using jam technology while planes are trying to take off and land is probably not a great idea  :-\ safety issues
the airport should buy up the old stock of Russian heat seeking missiles to bring these drones down  :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 22 December 2018, 11:45:50
The terminology is a bit ambiguous... I take jamming to mean blocking a signal, and interference to confuse either the propulsion or GPS.

There was obviously summat going on with the temporary exclusion zone around the airfield.

Chapter 1, page 4 on the link I posted last night clearly defines the 3D space that must be kept clear around any runway ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 22 December 2018, 11:57:26
Apparently they're now reporting that two people have been arrested,hopefully they will prove to be the culprits and if so then made an example of.


Are they copycats or the ones doing both nights?


Example? Five years , out in two for good behaviour. One year for the battery changing assistant , suspended sentence. The drone operator will be in big demand in the nick. Just what they need to evade the long arm of the prison officer. ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 22 December 2018, 12:45:54
Of course it can be jammed , technology is there just needs the authorisation.
Not really if its flying autonomously, as there is no signal to jam (assuming its being done maliciously by somebody with half an ounce of intelligence).  The Flight Controller (aka Autopilot) is pre-programmed with waypoints to fly to.  And that's also what makes it so hard to locate those responsible (assuming they don't want the drone back, else you just need to track where it lands and monitor that).

A £25 Flight Controller, and £7 GPS/compass loaded up with free open source software is all that is needed to fly autonomously.  And all multirotor drones have a flight controller of some description (too unstable to fly without), and the vast, vast majority have GPS capability.


Obviously, if its being manually flown, there will be a link, usually 2.4Ghz for short range (couple of km, so less likely in this case) or 900Mhz for long range (10km).  The trouble is, most links frequency hop to prevent interference - hence you can have a load of people flying together on the same frequency, with none of that tosh of sticking flags on you transmitter that you did in the old days - meaning you'd have to jam the whole frequency range and at high power.  Jamming 900Mhz would piss off the mobile networks and their customers, and potentially impact TV.  Jamming 2.4Ghz would piss off just about everyone.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 22 December 2018, 12:47:33
I suspect the army's special equipment is organic, and just a better shot than the average flatfoot ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 22 December 2018, 13:08:48
My best mates son is at Gatwick as we speak, with the armed forces equipment to deal with this " crap" as he put it.😀
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 22 December 2018, 14:06:33
My best mates son is at Gatwick as we speak, with the armed forces equipment to deal with this " crap" as he put it.😀
He should be grateful that he isn't in the Sandbox for Christmas  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 22 December 2018, 19:38:35
This reminds me of something I have wondered for a while:

Drones are deemed such a problem that geofences were mandated, height restrictions mandated, distance from operator mandated etc..

But you could go out and buy an "old fashioned" RC chopper or aircraft and fly it right over the airport and there's nothing to stop you; so why was that never a "thing" and why didn't they end up banned?

Maybe because they take more skill to fly (sorry, TB ;)) and are owned by more responsible people? (Sorry, TB ;D )
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 22 December 2018, 19:57:37
This reminds me of something I have wondered for a while:

Drones are deemed such a problem that geofences were mandated, height restrictions mandated, distance from operator mandated etc..

But you could go out and buy an "old fashioned" RC chopper or aircraft and fly it right over the airport and there's nothing to stop you; so why was that never a "thing" and why didn't they end up banned?

Maybe because they take more skill to fly (sorry, TB ;)) and are owned by more responsible people? (Sorry, TB ;D )




Nail on the head I think.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 22 December 2018, 20:31:22
This reminds me of something I have wondered for a while:

Drones are deemed such a problem that geofences were mandated, height restrictions mandated, distance from operator mandated etc..

But you could go out and buy an "old fashioned" RC chopper or aircraft and fly it right over the airport and there's nothing to stop you; so why was that never a "thing" and why didn't they end up banned?

Maybe because they take more skill to fly (sorry, TB ;)) and are owned by more responsible people? (Sorry, TB ;D )
You are right, quadcopters are seen as antisocial, and these machines are what most people call drones - although a drone is any unmanned powered flying machine.

The lower end of the quad market has become toy/gadget territory, and little Johnny on Christmas morning isn't going to find the rules of flying inside the box.

Additionally, virtually every quad has a camera onboard, which causes privacy concerns, and hence there are rules around that. But again, little Johnny wont know.

Lastly, this all causes distrust amongst the public, and the media do not help.


So, yes, quadcopters are an issue, and are leading some of the legislation, mostly kneejerk to be seen to be something about those who don't know/obey the laws.  And the CAA understand this. Hence I can legally fly some of my drones above the 400' limit, just not the multicopters.


As for geofences, I'm only aware of DJI implementing that in their flight controllers. And nobody who is into it as a hobby uses DJI, they are for the antisocial ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Raeturbo on 22 December 2018, 23:27:30
Of course it can be jammed , technology is there just needs the authorisation.
Not really if its flying autonomously, as there is no signal to jam (assuming its being done maliciously by somebody with half an ounce of intelligence).  The Flight Controller (aka Autopilot) is pre-programmed with waypoints to fly to.  And that's also what makes it so hard to locate those responsible (assuming they don't want the drone back, else you just need to track where it lands and monitor that).

A £25 Flight Controller, and £7 GPS/compass loaded up with free open source software is all that is needed to fly autonomously.  And all multirotor drones have a flight controller of some description (too unstable to fly without), and the vast, vast majority have GPS capability.


Obviously, if its being manually flown, there will be a link, usually 2.4Ghz for short range (couple of km, so less likely in this case) or 900Mhz for long range (10km).  The trouble is, most links frequency hop to prevent interference - hence you can have a load of people flying together on the same frequency, with none of that tosh of sticking flags on you transmitter that you did in the old days - meaning you'd have to jam the whole frequency range and at high power.  Jamming 900Mhz would piss off the mobile networks and their customers, and potentially impact TV.  Jamming 2.4Ghz would piss off just about everyone.
.                                                  Well these fu(kers have pissed more than 140,000 passengers off apparently!
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 23 December 2018, 10:20:20
Jamming 900Mhz would piss off the mobile networks and their customers, and potentially impact TV.  Jamming 2.4Ghz would piss off just about everyone.
.                                                  Well these fu(kers have pissed more than 140,000 passengers off apparently!
Which is insignificant compared the numbers of pissed off people if jamming was used  So that's what you base your decision on.

I don't know much about commercial flights, but I wouldn't mind guessing that commercial aircraft would have to be grounded during jamming.

Lastly, if jamming would have been effective - and there is no certainty it would have - you have to bear in mind that 1-4kg dropping out of the sky is also an issue, and imagine the media outrage if one had hit a precious little snowflake and killed them.


All of which leads us to where we are. The risk was known for a few years. Nobody had a clear idea how to deal with it, so you can imagine it gets pushed into backlogs at all planning meetings, and then in that great British tradition, panic when it does happen, and act surprised about this "new" threat.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 23 December 2018, 10:29:57
There was an exclusion zone over and around the airport, so I guess the impact would depend on the range of the equipment used and whether four or five units could be used to attack the drone at relatively short range from different directions, effectively pinning it to a point that it could be accurately dealt with, assuming of course that it doesn't fall out of the sky when it gets confused.

Randomly chasing it around the sky with a shotgun or HK MP5 would only end in tears, but taking out a stationary target with a rifle would be a much less risky.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Gaffers on 23 December 2018, 10:42:52
Why don't drones have to pay air tax and have insurance?  Surely they should also have number plates on them so we can trace the owner ::) ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 23 December 2018, 11:00:09
At the end of the day why does the normal man/woman require a drone ? Simple they don't.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 23 December 2018, 11:09:42
At the end of the day why does the normal man/woman require a drone ? Simple they don't.
There was a small one hovering around the back of our houses during the summer. On the third day one of my neighbours started taking pot shots at it with his .22 air rifle, it was low enough. He never hit it, of course, but the operator must have been close enough to see what was going on and it never came back.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 23 December 2018, 11:22:34
At the end of the day why does the normal man/woman require a drone ? Simple they don't.
There was a small one hovering around the back of our houses during the summer. On the third day one of my neighbours started taking pot shots at it with his .22 air rifle, it was low enough. He never hit it, of course, but the operator must have been close enough to see what was going on and it never came back.
[/quote 



Exactly what I would do , nosy bastards, peeping toms get a proper hobby.

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 23 December 2018, 11:31:46
We're an old fashioned lot round here. There's a line of car parking spaces which run along the side street by me, for the houses on the opposite side. But, not surprisingly, all and sundry use it. One fella, who lives down the road, has a dash cam in his car, and the little red light on it flashes away even when it's parked. He was asked to park elsewhere, he didn't. He was told that he was a fickin pervert, he still parked there. Black masking tape was placed over the screen where the camera was, he still parked there. His windscreen was given a coat of black spray paint. He still parks there, but takes his dash cam indoors with him.  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Nick W on 23 December 2018, 12:13:53
At the end of the day why does the normal man/woman require a drone ? Simple they don't.


Nobody needs a guitar, set of golf bats, more than one car or any of the other toys we have.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 23 December 2018, 12:18:47
We're an old fashioned lot round here. There's a line of car parking spaces which run along the side street by me, for the houses on the opposite side. But, not surprisingly, all and sundry use it. One fella, who lives down the road, has a dash cam in his car, and the little red light on it flashes away even when it's parked. He was asked to park elsewhere, he didn't. He was told that he was a fickin pervert, he still parked there. Black masking tape was placed over the screen where the camera was, he still parked there. His windscreen was given a coat of black spray paint. He still parks there, but takes his dash cam indoors with him.  ;D
Lets hope he does not give all the footage of you with all those "goods" you don't have receipts for ,to the rozzers   ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 23 December 2018, 12:36:50
We're an old fashioned lot round here. There's a line of car parking spaces which run along the side street by me, for the houses on the opposite side. But, not surprisingly, all and sundry use it. One fella, who lives down the road, has a dash cam in his car, and the little red light on it flashes away even when it's parked. He was asked to park elsewhere, he didn't. He was told that he was a fickin pervert, he still parked there. Black masking tape was placed over the screen where the camera was, he still parked there. His windscreen was given a coat of black spray paint. He still parks there, but takes his dash cam indoors with him.  ;D
Lets hope he does not give all the footage of you with all those "goods" you don't have receipts for ,to the rozzers   ::)
Nowt to do with me, I live on the main road.  :)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 23 December 2018, 13:26:01
This reminds me of something I have wondered for a while:

Drones are deemed such a problem that geofences were mandated, height restrictions mandated, distance from operator mandated etc..

But you could go out and buy an "old fashioned" RC chopper or aircraft and fly it right over the airport and there's nothing to stop you; so why was that never a "thing" and why didn't they end up banned?

Maybe because they take more skill to fly (sorry, TB ;)) and are owned by more responsible people? (Sorry, TB ;D )

 I suppose it is possible to teach youself how to fly this system, but most will just give up. Getting the A/C into the air is relatively easy, but flight times will vary & it will always be followed by a splintering sound as it lands. Most will then seek out a local flying club.

All the clubs follow a code of practise relevant to safe flying.

The point I`m trying to make is that most traditional RC flyers will be schooled to fly by the club system. Meaning they will have that safety message upper most in their minds when & where ever they fly their models.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: ronnyd on 23 December 2018, 14:08:36
The search stills goes on for the culprit(s) as the police have released the pair from custody with charge.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Andy B on 23 December 2018, 14:38:27
..... released the pair from custody with OUT charge.

 ;) ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 23 December 2018, 15:09:40
The search stills goes on for the culprit(s) as the police have released the pair from custody with charge.


Probably some other offence like awful curtains. ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: ronnyd on 23 December 2018, 15:16:45
..... released the pair from custody with OUT charge.

 ;) ;)
Whoops, Senior moment, well another one really. ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 23 December 2018, 15:49:02
This story is gonna drone on & on  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 23 December 2018, 15:53:38
£50k reward on offer for someone to grass up their mates  :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: zirk on 23 December 2018, 16:15:57
£50k reward on offer for someone to grass up their mates  :y
50 Grand, lovely, what Mates.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 23 December 2018, 17:27:37
This story is gonna drone on & on  ::)
>:( :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 23 December 2018, 18:11:35
This story is gonna drone on & on  ::)
>:( :-X
;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 23 December 2018, 18:29:02
What has been equally badly handled by possibly the police & definitely the press in the race to pin this crime on culprit(s), is that the police & press should not be naming names while person(s) of interest are helping the police with their enquiries until they have been charged. We still have, in the UK, trial by jury not by public opinion. :(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Shackeng on 23 December 2018, 19:07:20
D-I-L's parents were caught up in this the other morning for a flight to Malta. Finished having to pay hotel at LHR and £500 each to get there the next day via Frankfurt. >:( I doubt they'll get much, if any, of that back from insurance or airline. Such a shame, as they are not well-off, and this, for them, was a holiday of a lifetime. >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 23 December 2018, 21:38:16
Police are now saying that there is a possibility that there was no drone.  ???






HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 23 December 2018, 21:51:44
My suggestion it was a hologram gains traction......
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 23 December 2018, 22:14:43
It was the mother ship of an alien invasion force.  :)

However they miscalculated the scale of things and all the fighters and troop ships it disgorged were swallowed by a small dog!  :o  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 23 December 2018, 22:16:11
It was a sleigh on a reccy.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 12:11:49
What has been equally badly handled by possibly the police & definitely the press in the race to pin this crime on culprit(s), is that the police & press should not be naming names while person(s) of interest are helping the police with their enquiries until they have been charged. We still have, in the UK, trial by jury not by public opinion. :(


It was nothing to do with them and it is against police procedures to do that as it can prejudice any prosecution.  It was the media, with no doubt the help of their neighbours and the person who suggested their names to the police.  That is life now in this social media age! :(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 24 December 2018, 12:33:58
Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 13:01:06
Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to. :)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 24 December 2018, 13:06:10
Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to. :)


How do you know that ?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 24 December 2018, 13:08:05
In the Sun's own words, "identified by local residents"
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 24 December 2018, 13:25:59
I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN  ???
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 13:26:14
Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to. :)


How do you know that ?


The police have disclosed that to us as ICIA's.  Cannot say anymore  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 13:26:50
I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN  ???

Phone calls were made direct to the police ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 24 December 2018, 13:32:00
Rest assured, if this had been a hoax, it would have been done and dusted in about  ninety minutes... (it takes and hour to reopen the runway to arrivals).

Certainly they wouldn't have allowed the airport to be shut down for as long as they did without a very real threat to aircraft.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 13:36:13
Rest assured, if this had been a hoax, it would have been done and dusted in about  ninety minutes... (it takes and hour to reopen the runway to arrivals).

Certainly they wouldn't have allowed the airport to be shut down for as long as they did without a very real threat to aircraft.

Exactly :y :y

This went to a Gold Command situation whereby it was not done lightly by some low ranking officer, but taken to the highest level within Sussex Police.  Questions are rightly being asked though as to why COBRA was not activated within the first few hours of this incident starting.  That is one for the politicians! ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 24 December 2018, 13:39:37
I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN  ???
You have that totally arse backwards...

A significant event has happened locally.

Say an apparently normal couple, let's call them Mr +. Mrs 78 Bex, from over the road get dragged from their house by armed police and there's five or six police cars clogging your road up for the day as they search the place.

One of your neighbours, an avid Sun reader, who possibly likes a flutter, thinks to himself, I can make a couple of quid here and get Christmas paid for and although Mr and Mrs Bex78 are nice enough, he's always leaving his wheeliebin in the way of my drive...

Said neighbours would have identified you to the Sun before you got to Havant nick...  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 13:43:04
I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN  ???
You have that totally arse backwards...

A significant event has happened locally.

Say an apparently normal couple, let's call them Mr +. Mrs 78 Bex, from over the road get dragged from their house by armed police and there's five or six police cars clogging your road up for the day as they search the place.

One of your neighbours, an avid Sun reader, who possibly likes a flutter, thinks to himself, I can make a couple of quid here and get Christmas paid for and although Mr and Mrs Bex78 are nice enough, he's always leaving his wheeliebin in the way of my drive...

Said neighbours would have identified you to the Sun before you got to Havant nick...  ::)


Yes, and with money on offer.............................Crimestoppers is offering a £50K reward to anyone who correctly identifies the culprits and results in a successful prosecution. How much are the media offering I wonder??  Too tempting for some......!! :o :o
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 24 December 2018, 13:59:52
The ironic with that scenario, is that Mr +Mrs 78bex could have been arrested for something completely unrelated like helping to ship 400kgs of cannabis to a Lincolnshire drug ring...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 24 December 2018, 14:05:21
It is my understanding that the press code forbids people being named in these circumstances. There is currently a private member's bill going through Parliament that, if passed, will forbid people of interest or helping with enquiries being named unless permission is given by a Crown or higher judge. :y Such reckless behaviour by the press (several outlets named them) fortunately have had no nasty repercussions, so far, from the public taking the law into their own hands. :(

I hope the couple involved make a complaint on this to the Press Complaints Commission & it results in more than an apology, on page 15, in the small print.

As for the police, like all large organisations they will have issues at times on security, officers following the rules or rogue officers having their own agendas. So I will reserve judgement on this, beyond my "possibly", until any internal investigation has been made public.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 24 December 2018, 18:48:18
So they eventually used multi million pound military equipment to deal with the drone at Gatwick and apparently the police were reluctant to get the army involved because it would make them look bad, which is why this saga dragged on for so long!  >:(

The police should have done this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm6a3QXG_qI) in the first place!  :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 24 December 2018, 19:46:42
So they eventually used multi million pound military equipment to deal with the drone at Gatwick and apparently the police were reluctant to get the army involved because it would make them look bad, which is why this saga dragged on for so long!  >:(

The police should have done this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm6a3QXG_qI) in the first place!  :y

Our local news has reported that the management of Gatwick airport have now decided to spend £5 billion (or was that million??!) on the equipment it needs to stop a repeat of this affair which they should have invested in before! ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 24 December 2018, 19:57:37
I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN  ???
You have that totally arse backwards...

A significant event has happened locally.

Say an apparently normal couple, let's call them Mr +. Mrs 78 Bex, from over the road get dragged from their house by armed police and there's five or six police cars clogging your road up for the day as they search the place.

One of your neighbours, an avid Sun reader, who possibly likes a flutter, thinks to himself, I can make a couple of quid here and get Christmas paid for and although Mr and Mrs Bex78 are nice enough, he's always leaving his wheeliebin in the way of my drive...

Said neighbours would have identified you to the Sun before you got to Havant nick...  ::)


Yes, and with money on offer.............................Crimestoppers is offering a £50K reward to anyone who correctly identifies the culprits and results in a successful prosecution. How much are the media offering I wonder??  Too tempting for some......!! :o :o

Swmbo wouldn`t go quietly, she give em one her stares   ;D

In the summer Plod pulled her over on her Triumph cos the exhaust is a tad loud.
Her bike cam listened into the conversation & they were like putty in hands.
The younger cop says summat like;  "Oh we didn`t realise you was lady biker until we got behind you"  ??? ....... At that point she gets the same cop to help her off with biker jacket "cos it`s just too hot"
The bike had just been serviced & they all agree that the dealer must have done summat wrong.  ;D

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 24 December 2018, 21:11:23
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48929099_10161193146670254_4767605756612575232_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=03d564951822c7976a482e00ead2608e&oe=5C99CBFE)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 24 December 2018, 21:50:37
I suppose you think that's funny >:(

https://youtu.be/7zrXb_YQQag
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 24 December 2018, 22:02:43
I suppose you think that's funny >:(

https://youtu.be/7zrXb_YQQag
Actually, Al, it is funny. We can't all just stop having a laugh because you drive a snow plough at an airport.  :P
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: YZ250 on 24 December 2018, 22:11:34
I suppose you think that's funny >:(

https://youtu.be/7zrXb_YQQag
Actually, Al, it is funny. We can't all just stop having a laugh because you drive a snow plough at an airport.  :P

Looks like he landed on his sack.  ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 24 December 2018, 22:37:02
I suppose you think that's funny >:(

https://youtu.be/7zrXb_YQQag
Actually, Al, it is funny. We can't all just stop having a laugh because you drive a snow plough at an airport.  :P

Looks like he landed on his sack.  ::)

Don`t worry children  ;D Santa is just fine & updating the app  for his grim reaper drone  8)

We`re  just getting an update & I think that is Dave the builder`s car driving  below
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB-b5N9E2U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB-b5N9E2U)


Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 25 December 2018, 00:14:43
So they eventually used multi million pound military equipment to deal with the drone at Gatwick and apparently the police were reluctant to get the army involved because it would make them look bad, which is why this saga dragged on for so long!  >:(

The police should have done this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm6a3QXG_qI) in the first place!  :y

Our local news has reported that the management of Gatwick airport have now decided to spend £5 billion (or was that million??!) on the equipment it needs to stop a repeat of this affair which they should have invested in before! ::)

That's expensive bog roll!  :o  or maybe just a shit load!  :-X  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 25 December 2018, 10:00:48


I suppose you think that's funny >:(

https://youtu.be/7zrXb_YQQag

Yes I did DG  :y

Your video link, not so much so , shows how dangerous drones are ,which is why I agree that they should be limited to ,say 500 feet and away from built up areas ,particularly around sensitive areas like airports , which I believe is legislation  :-\

that said,Santa delivered lots of these drones himself to untrained idiots last Christmas ,and should have expected to run into one  ;D


Don`t worry children  ;D Santa is just fine & updating the app  for his grim reaper drone  8)

We`re  just getting an update & I think that is Dave the builder`s car driving  below
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB-b5N9E2U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB-b5N9E2U)
;D :D

Nope ,I'm still alive ,despite several shandies yesterday  :P
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 25 December 2018, 11:27:58
Why don't drones have to pay air tax and have insurance?  Surely they should also have number plates on them so we can trace the owner ::) ;D
Personally, I wouldn't fly without insurance, and unless you're just playing with a 50m range toy in your garden, anyone would be mental not to take out a policy.


If its with malicious intent, I'm sure any identifying marks would be removed or faked, including electronic ones.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 25 December 2018, 11:38:02
At the end of the day why does the normal man/woman require a drone ? Simple they don't.
So now we are only allowed "things" sanctioned by our government?  Read that back to yourself a few times, then ask if that extends to v8 cars ;)

There was a small one hovering around the back of our houses during the summer. On the third day one of my neighbours

started taking pot shots at it with his .22 air rifle, it was low enough. He never hit it, of course, but the operator must have been close enough to see what was going on and it never came back.
Exactly what I would do , nosy bastards, peeping toms get a proper hobby.
That shows a great negligence, and what about the country's belief of innocent until proven guilty?  How do you know its got a camera? Or its enabled?  Am I allowed to take pop shots at your prized possessions?

I know the dumbest amongst us would believe everything the media says, and that "drones" (specifically meaning multicopters in this case) are evil (despite using them extensively themselves), but surely the intelligent thing to do would be turn the gun on the operator ;)

There are clear laws in place to protect the public, both in safety and privacy.  We don't ban all cars or bikes from the roads because some are caught speeding, we prosecute the individual...   ...then are let down by the CPS and prison systems, but that's another debate.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 25 December 2018, 13:40:17
At the end of the day why does the normal man/woman require a drone ? Simple they don't.
So now we are only allowed "things" sanctioned by our government?  Read that back to yourself a few times, then ask if that extends to v8 cars ;)

There was a small one hovering around the back of our houses during the summer. On the third day one of my neighbours

started taking pot shots at it with his .22 air rifle, it was low enough. He never hit it, of course, but the operator must have been close enough to see what was going on and it never came back.
Exactly what I would do , nosy bastards, peeping toms get a proper hobby.
That shows a great negligence, and what about the country's belief of innocent until proven guilty?  How do you know its got a camera? Or its enabled?  Am I allowed to take pop shots at your prized possessions?

I know the dumbest amongst us would believe everything the media says, and that "drones" (specifically meaning multicopters in this case) are evil (despite using them extensively themselves), but surely the intelligent thing to do would be turn the gun on the operator ;)

There are clear laws in place to protect the public, both in safety and privacy.  We don't ban all cars or bikes from the roads because some are caught speeding, we prosecute the individual...   ...then are let down by the CPS and prison systems, but that's another debate.
How do you know it hasn't got a camera, or if it's disabled?  I'm pretty sure if something hovered over your back garden for a couple of hours for a few days running, you'd be a bit put out. It wasn't actually me that took potshots at it, but I certainly didn't try to talk him out of it.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Olympia5776 on 25 December 2018, 13:51:37
Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to. :)


How do you know that ?


The police have disclosed that to us as ICIA's.  Cannot say anymore  ;) ;)

I guess I'm the only one on here that has to ask ,exactly what is an ICIA ?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 25 December 2018, 13:58:49
Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to. :)


How do you know that ?


The police have disclosed that to us as ICIA's.  Cannot say anymore  ;) ;)

I guess I'm the only one on here that has to ask ,exactly what is an ICIA ?
Possibly the only one interested enough.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: YZ250 on 25 December 2018, 14:40:44
.......
.......I'm pretty sure if something hovered over your back garden for a couple of hours for a few days running, you'd be a bit put out.......

Not sure I'd feel comfortable hovering anything over his house. I saw first hand where some of the stuff landed after his last clear out.  ;D

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 25 December 2018, 17:20:23
Just seems a pointless & damn stupid not to mention invasive hobby or whatever anyone wishes to call it , childish comments were expected.. these things cannot be compared to cars.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Gaffers on 25 December 2018, 18:20:44
Why don't drones have to pay air tax and have insurance?  Surely they should also have number plates on them so we can trace the owner ::) ;D
Personally, I wouldn't fly without insurance, and unless you're just playing with a 50m range toy in your garden, anyone would be mental not to take out a policy.


If its with malicious intent, I'm sure any identifying marks would be removed or faked, including electronic ones.

Sorry for not replying sooner, it took a while to get my tongue out of my cheek  ;) :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 26 December 2018, 10:24:23
Just seems a pointless & damn stupid not to mention invasive hobby or whatever anyone wishes to call it , childish comments were expected.. these things cannot be compared to cars.

Bit like golf, then, or fishing, or anything else I don't enjoy personally.

First they came for the socialists..
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Nick W on 26 December 2018, 13:45:29
Just seems a pointless & damn stupid not to mention invasive hobby or whatever anyone wishes to call it , childish comments were expected.. these things cannot be compared to cars.


Pointless and damn stupid would be a good definition for most hobbies I can think of.




Comparing drones to cars depends on the car: a small to mid-size hatchback needs no justification for most owners, most of the time. That's why they're so common. Anything bigger is much harder to justify in most cases without adding want rather than need. Which is true of my Omega/BMW/Capri etc ownership. Many of the car I've owned/covet are as much toys as practical.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 26 December 2018, 18:50:41
How do you know it hasn't got a camera, or if it's disabled?  I'm pretty sure if something hovered over your back garden for a couple of hours for a few days running, you'd be a bit put out. It wasn't actually me that took potshots at it, but I certainly didn't try to talk him out of it.
Doesn't really matter, they are not allowed (legally) to fly low over your home, camera or otherwise, without your permission.  So the proper course of action is to report to the ol' bill.

Multirotors in particular are a bit noisy, so any operator with half an ounce of brain should know that it has the ability to piss people off.  But as always in life, there are always some who think they can do as they please, no matter who it upsets.


My solution is well known, but unpopular with do-gooders, and Opti's avatar.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 27 December 2018, 08:38:32
So I hear this morning that the firm with the controlling stake in Gatwick (50.1%) has sold it's stake to a multinational who own airports in France, Spain and Portugal.


.. I wonder if they own any drones.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 27 December 2018, 09:07:50
So I hear this morning that the firm with the controlling stake in Gatwick (50.1%) has sold it's stake to a multinational who own airports in France, Spain and Portugal.


.. I wonder if they own any drones.
Not news... Been on the market for a while now  ;)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-10/gip-is-said-to-consider-sale-of-its-stake-in-gatwick-airport

That said, now it's done, perhaps the management will regain a more operational focus :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: biggriffin on 27 December 2018, 09:51:25
So I hear this morning that the firm with the controlling stake in Gatwick (50.1%) has sold it's stake to a multinational who own airports in France, Spain and Portugal.


.. I wonder if they own any drones.
Not news... Been on the market for a while now  ;)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-10/gip-is-said-to-consider-sale-of-its-stake-in-gatwick-airport

That said, now it's done, perhaps the management will regain a more operational focus :-X


Er no, Officer crabtree will be in charge,with help from des gilets jaunes. What could possibly go Wong,  Just more of our business) infrastructure owned indirectly by the French government
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 27 December 2018, 11:57:51
Since the innocent couple were released, there has been no news at all about how the police manhunt is going. So, was there ever a drone ?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 27 December 2018, 12:40:01
Since the innocent couple were released, there has been no news at all about how the police manhunt is going. So, was there ever a drone ?

just go outside & stare upwards, very soon others will join in  ;D ruddy drones are everwhere
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 27 December 2018, 16:50:38
Since the innocent couple were released, there has been no news at all about how the police manhunt is going. So, was there ever a drone ?
Given some of the police comments, there are beginning to suggest maybe there were none.  So, either...

1) There were, but to cover up their ineffectiveness, yet still open the airport, suggesting none.
or
2) There weren't (or there was one accidentally/negligently flown near) and people started viewing birds as drones, esp once the media hype gets going.


What I do know is, if this was a malicious drone attack, the perps gave up a bit too easily.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Entwood on 27 December 2018, 16:56:10
Since the innocent couple were released, there has been no news at all about how the police manhunt is going. So, was there ever a drone ?
Given some of the police comments, there are beginning to suggest maybe there were none.  So, either...

1) There were, but to cover up their ineffectiveness, yet still open the airport, suggesting none.
or
2) There weren't (or there was one accidentally/negligently flown near) and people started viewing birds as drones, esp once the media hype gets going.


What I do know is, if this was a malicious drone attack, the perps gave up a bit too easily.

I believe they found a wrecked one near the scene ??

Problem with the highly sophisticated military hardware that "might" have been deployed ... it causes the drone to crash which removes the immediate problem,  (unless it crashes onto someone/something sensitive), but does not allow the operator to be traced ... so a well equiped perpetrator simply needs to have a ready supply handy and launch another .....  :(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 27 December 2018, 17:01:07
Or have a dead drone that is untraceable plus my hologram projection theory .
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 27 December 2018, 17:07:49
Or have a dead drone that is untraceable plus my hologram projection theory .

So it was the Bat Signal?  :)

And Batman snuck in under cover of all the mayhem to do what he had to do, and then got out!  :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 27 December 2018, 17:46:46
Titter ye not. Hologram technology has moved on a long way since then.

Coincidence both begin with G ?!
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 27 December 2018, 18:23:15
Payg 3 sim ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 27 December 2018, 18:52:39
There is an example of time warp. Posted on other thread and gets on here..........

By Gotham City tractor beam holography  :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 27 December 2018, 21:04:32
There is an example of time warp. Posted on other thread and gets on here..........

By Gotham City tractor beam holography  :y
Dad, the internet is broken again ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 29 December 2018, 23:30:19
Apparently it is now confirmed that the damaged drone found near the area was nothing to do with the investigation.
Also, some of the reported sightings may have been sightings of police drones which were looking for the drone which was originally reported.
Far canal, embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it. Im still wondering if there was ever actually a drone at all.  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 30 December 2018, 02:15:45
Apparently it is now confirmed that the damaged drone found near the area was nothing to do with the investigation.
Also, some of the reported sightings may have been sightings of police drones which were looking for the drone which was originally reported.
Far canal, embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it. Im still wondering if there was ever actually a drone at all.  ;D

It really is puzzling, just like an old fashioned who drone it  ;D
Think I`ll join up with some mates & go lookin for old bottles in the woods  :-X

  https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA (https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA)




Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: ronnyd on 30 December 2018, 12:18:57
Apparently it is now confirmed that the damaged drone found near the area was nothing to do with the investigation.
Also, some of the reported sightings may have been sightings of police drones which were looking for the drone which was originally reported.
Far canal, embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it. Im still wondering if there was ever actually a drone at all.  ;D

It really is puzzling, just like an old fashioned who drone it  ;D
Think I`ll join up with some mates & go lookin for old bottles in the woods  :-X

  https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA (https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA)





Wow, watched about 10secs.  ;D Still, each to their own. :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 30 December 2018, 13:35:08
They might have taken all the detritus and recycled it...  ::)

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 30 December 2018, 16:35:50
Apparently it is now confirmed that the damaged drone found near the area was nothing to do with the investigation.
Also, some of the reported sightings may have been sightings of police drones which were looking for the drone which was originally reported.
Far canal, embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it. Im still wondering if there was ever actually a drone at all.  ;D

It really is puzzling, just like an old fashioned who drone it  ;D
Think I`ll join up with some mates & go lookin for old bottles in the woods  :-X

  https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA (https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA)





Wow, watched about 10secs.  ;D Still, each to their own. :y


My youngest brother and I never got that kind of response when digging around along the Western Front in Belgium and France and unearthing live grenades, bullet, and shell rounds from WW1 battlefield sites!! :o :o :o

Mind you that was in the 1990's! ::) ;D ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 30 December 2018, 19:37:42
Apparently it is now confirmed that the damaged drone found near the area was nothing to do with the investigation.
Also, some of the reported sightings may have been sightings of police drones which were looking for the drone which was originally reported.
Far canal, embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it. Im still wondering if there was ever actually a drone at all.  ;D

It really is puzzling, just like an old fashioned who drone it  ;D
Think I`ll join up with some mates & go lookin for old bottles in the woods  :-X

  https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA (https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA)





Wow, watched about 10secs.  ;D Still, each to their own. :y


My youngest brother and I never got that kind of response when digging around along the Western Front in Belgium and France and unearthing live grenades, bullet, and shell rounds from WW1 battlefield sites!! :o :o :o

Mind you that was in the 1990's! ::) ;D ;)

On the time team special about WW1 they are still ploughing this stuff up

There now seems to be less freedom for folks to get out & explore their environment  :(
 
I noticed a bloke filming in the local town, tripod; long lens etc.  I was scoffing my lunch on a bench nearby  :)
Very soon he had a PCSO & then a cop demanding to know who he was & what he was doing.  He point blank refused to identify himself & said he wasn`t breaking any laws, so he had freedom to film anything fron a public footpath he liked. In the end the law boogered off & left him to it  ;D
Now was he correct to say that  ??? they didn`t cart him off, so maybe we do have certain rights.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 31 December 2018, 10:29:17
Now was he correct to say that  ??? they didn`t cart him off, so maybe we do have certain rights.

I don't see them arresting hoards of tourists with their cameras in London, so.. yes.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 31 December 2018, 12:23:44
Verystiff fines in Spain for filming or photographing the police..

Not sure how tv companies manage tocover riots. Maybe they have press permits and an agreement not to show u usual police activity like brutality.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 31 December 2018, 12:33:23
I believe that you can be arrested to aid investigation into your identity if the situation warrants it...

Also there might be summat in the local bye laws against filming without permission.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lizzie Zoom on 31 December 2018, 14:20:17
Apparently it is now confirmed that the damaged drone found near the area was nothing to do with the investigation.
Also, some of the reported sightings may have been sightings of police drones which were looking for the drone which was originally reported.
Far canal, embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it. Im still wondering if there was ever actually a drone at all.  ;D

It really is puzzling, just like an old fashioned who drone it  ;D
Think I`ll join up with some mates & go lookin for old bottles in the woods  :-X

  https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA (https://youtu.be/rMNJ8wRfjEA)





Wow, watched about 10secs.  ;D Still, each to their own. :y


My youngest brother and I never got that kind of response when digging around along the Western Front in Belgium and France and unearthing live grenades, bullet, and shell rounds from WW1 battlefield sites!! :o :o :o

Mind you that was in the 1990's! ::) ;D ;)

On the time team special about WW1 they are still ploughing this stuff up

There now seems to be less freedom for folks to get out & explore their environment
  :(
 

Yes, and people will be digging this all up for centuries to come, as there is an estimated 300-500 million unexploded ordinance all along the old Western Front.  If you walk the battlefields as I have you will see live,and the remains of exploded shells and grenades everywhere, along with all the other debris of full scale war.  No wonder farmers are blown to bits every year when their tractors hit an unexploded shell! :'(

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 03 January 2019, 13:50:26
Speaking of drones and ordnance, this is a good thread: https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1080724993238069249

tl;dr: IS forces strap 40mm grenades to consumer grade drones and drop them on Iraqi forces. Regularly. Nothing (including shooting the drone) is effective in stopping them except one thing ..

.. shooting the operator.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 03 January 2019, 14:55:36
Speaking of drones and ordnance, this is a good thread: https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1080724993238069249

tl;dr: IS forces strap 40mm grenades to consumer grade drones and drop them on Iraqi forces. Regularly. Nothing (including shooting the drone) is effective in stopping them except one thing ..

.. shooting the operator.
There's hope yet...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 03 January 2019, 19:06:16
Guns from Eastern Europe being illegally imported into UK & then used by criminals are an increasing problem here. We know how porus the UK border is from the number of recently reported illegal Iranian immigrants getting a tourist visa to Serbia then using the EU open borders to travel to the Channel. They are then smuggled across the Channel for a €4k to €9k fee each. It is inevitable plenty of illegal cigarettes, drugs, sex workers, weapons & cash that needs laundering & other goods will be using similar routes where the UK is a major crime operations & profit centre for the Russian mafia. They expanded from Eastern Europe to go global from the 1990's onwards, including taking over or displacing the Italian mafia gangs in the US. Boss of bosses Ukrainian Semion Mogilevich is not known as the brainy don for nothing where he has expanded his operations from the Soviet Union to go global. :(

Criminals paying larges sums of money to get to the UK is seen as an investment with the rich pickings here compared to their own countries. :(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 03 January 2019, 21:56:44
Large gendarme presence at end of Rouen toll motorway today. We got pulled in our Spanish reg vehicle.

Purpose of travel. We are taking illegal migrants to the UK . We were waived through!

54,000 taken in by Spain this last year. Very few stay, most use the travel ticket they are given once pronounced well, to travel out of Spain to Northern Europe.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 03 January 2019, 22:43:32
Because the climate is sooo much more agreeable... ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Rods2 on 04 January 2019, 13:04:55
Because the financial climate is sooo much more agreeable... ::)

FTFY
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 04 January 2019, 21:44:42
Large gendarme presence at end of Rouen toll motorway today. We got pulled in our Spanish reg vehicle.

Purpose of travel. We are taking illegal migrants to the UK . We were waived through!

54,000 taken in by Spain this last year. Very few stay, most use the travel ticket they are given once pronounced well, to travel out of Spain to Northern Europe.

That's fairly obvious. Rouen is the @rsehole of the universe, so getting the hell out of there.. ;D

Which is easier said than done, as it seems to have some sort of force field around it that deflects any motor vehicles off their intended route and round the ring road endlessly. Or maybe the signs are just rubbish?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 04 January 2019, 23:25:41
Large gendarme presence at end of Rouen toll motorway today. We got pulled in our Spanish reg vehicle.

Purpose of travel. We are taking illegal migrants to the UK . We were waived through!

54,000 taken in by Spain this last year. Very few stay, most use the travel ticket they are given once pronounced well, to travel out of Spain to Northern Europe.

That's fairly obvious. Rouen is the @rsehole of the universe, so getting the hell out of there.. ;D

Which is easier said than done, as it seems to have some sort of force field around it that deflects any motor vehicles off their intended route and round the ring road endlessly. Or maybe the signs are just rubbish?

Have you tried Bordeaux? Just as bad.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 04 January 2019, 23:57:40
Well, if you are silly enough to go to French France...….. ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Nick W on 05 January 2019, 00:04:26
That's fairly obvious. Rouen is the @rsehole of the universe, so getting the hell out of there.. ;D

Which is easier said than done, as it seems to have some sort of force field around it that deflects any motor vehicles off their intended route and round the ring road endlessly. Or maybe the signs are just rubbish?


You're doing it wrong, takes about 15 minutes at lunchtime from entering the tunnel to getting on the motorway. Even my mother doesn't get lost, and she's still confused about directions in a town she's lived in for nearly 60 years :o


Bordeaux is easy, I just follow the signs for Biarritz or Paris depending  which direction I'm going. Again, about 45 minutes between the tolls.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 05 January 2019, 09:18:01
Have you tried Bordeaux? Just as bad.

I prefer a nice Merlot or Shiraz myself.  Preferably from the new world.  :)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 05 January 2019, 10:06:16
Large gendarme presence at end of Rouen toll motorway today. We got pulled in our Spanish reg vehicle.

Purpose of travel. We are taking illegal migrants to the UK . We were waived through!

54,000 taken in by Spain this last year. Very few stay, most use the travel ticket they are given once pronounced well, to travel out of Spain to Northern Europe.

That's fairly obvious. Rouen is the @rsehole of the universe, so getting the hell out of there.. ;D

Which is easier said than done, as it seems to have some sort of force field around it that deflects any motor vehicles off their intended route and round the ring road endlessly. Or maybe the signs are just rubbish?
Rouen is where another tomtom fell out the window, due to its insistence on going round in circles in the city centre. At rush hour.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 05 January 2019, 20:38:26
Large gendarme presence at end of Rouen toll motorway today. We got pulled in our Spanish reg vehicle.

Purpose of travel. We are taking illegal migrants to the UK . We were waived through!

54,000 taken in by Spain this last year. Very few stay, most use the travel ticket they are given once pronounced well, to travel out of Spain to Northern Europe.

That's fairly obvious. Rouen is the @rsehole of the universe, so getting the hell out of there.. ;D

Which is easier said than done, as it seems to have some sort of force field around it that deflects any motor vehicles off their intended route and round the ring road endlessly. Or maybe the signs are just rubbish?
Rouen is where another tomtom fell out the window, due to its insistence on going round in circles in the city centre. At rush hour.
Not just me then?
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Nick W on 05 January 2019, 20:50:34
Rouen is where another tomtom fell out the window, due to its insistence on going round in circles in the city centre. At rush hour.
Not just me then?


None of the three satnavs I've used have ever wanted to go through the city centre. It's on the other side of town to where you need to be for a start.Once again:down the hill, through the tunnel, over the bridge, turn off and under the road, past the marshalling yards, over the roundabout with the concrete cows and rejoin the motorway in the direction of Le Mans. Takes 15 minutes at lunch time. Same route in reverse when you return.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 05 January 2019, 23:15:04
Less haste, more speed :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 06 January 2019, 00:13:14
I've driven past Rouen a few times without any trouble.  :)

But that was in the olden days when you looked at a map and followed the signs.  ;)  ;D

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 06 January 2019, 00:33:04
I've driven past Rouen a few times without any trouble.  :)

But that was in the olden days when you looked at a map and followed the signs.  ;)  ;D
That'll never catch on either ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 07 January 2019, 18:10:35
I've driven past Rouen a few times without any trouble.  :)

But that was in the olden days when you looked at a map and followed the signs.  ;)  ;D
That'll never catch on either ;D

This was in those golden days too. Problem was, it was a 3 car convoy. One guy had the map, another had a clue where we were going, and I was bringing up the rear with the mobile phone (and the smallest fuel tank, irritatingly, on Sunday, in France, where they didn't take UK chip&pin cards at that time). ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 07 January 2019, 18:12:19
irritatingly, on Sunday, in France, where they didn't take UK chip&pin cards at that time). ;D
Ah, you too :D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 07 January 2019, 18:22:41
irritatingly, on Sunday, in France, where they didn't take UK chip&pin cards at that time). ;D
Ah, you too :D
Yep, it's real fun with a 25 litre tank and a pair of 45DCOEs. >:(

I ended up having to wait for a local to come along and then bribe him to fill my car up on his card in exchange for cash every 120 miles. ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Nick W on 07 January 2019, 18:28:04
irritatingly, on Sunday, in France, where they didn't take UK chip&pin cards at that time). ;D
Ah, you too :D
Yep, it's real fun with a 25 litre tank and a pair of 45DCOEs. >:(

I ended up having to wait for a local to come along and then bribe him to fill my car up on his card in exchange for cash every 120 miles. ::)


Sounds like operator error to me: you're clearly not intended to tour in a car meant as a toy for blatting about on a Sunday afternoon ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 08 January 2019, 09:19:48
irritatingly, on Sunday, in France, where they didn't take UK chip&pin cards at that time). ;D
Ah, you too :D
Yep, it's real fun with a 25 litre tank and a pair of 45DCOEs. >:(

I ended up having to wait for a local to come along and then bribe him to fill my car up on his card in exchange for cash every 120 miles. ::)


Sounds like operator error to me: you're clearly not intended to tour in a car meant as a toy for blatting about on a Sunday afternoon ;D
Where's the fun in that? ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Gaffers on 08 January 2019, 10:59:58
irritatingly, on Sunday, in France, where they didn't take UK chip&pin cards at that time). ;D
Ah, you too :D
Yep, it's real fun with a 25 litre tank and a pair of 45DCOEs. >:(

I ended up having to wait for a local to come along and then bribe him to fill my car up on his card in exchange for cash every 120 miles. ::)


Sounds like operator error to me: you're clearly not intended to tour in a car meant as a toy for blatting about on a Sunday afternoon ;D
Where's the fun in that? ;D

I work across the road from the Caterham showroom and they taunt me with their weekend rental for 200 notes.  I wonder if 'fair wear and tear' is included in the tyres likely state when I will give it back ::)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Lazydocker on 08 January 2019, 17:49:42
And now Heathrow:

Heathrow departures stopped as drone reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: STEMO on 08 January 2019, 17:57:49
And now Heathrow:

Heathrow departures stopped as drone reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713
Terrorist's dream come true. Bring the country to a halt with a few drones.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Gaffers on 08 January 2019, 18:09:15
Just seen.  Missus is supposed to be working tomorrow, that could be interesting.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 January 2019, 18:15:02
Just seen.  Missus is supposed to be working tomorrow, that could be interesting.
Home standby :-\

If it's closed for too long I can see the sandal wearing ecomentalists setting up camp on the runways... They have enough trouble keeping them away overnight.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 08 January 2019, 18:28:34
Intervening time since Gatwick spent looking for a suitable point to project the hologram ( or fly a drone if you like)


Then in a few  weeks time we will have same at Stanstead.

Flights resumed so we presume the hologram was shot down by Heathrows defence technology. ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 08 January 2019, 18:29:27
Just seen.  Missus is supposed to be working tomorrow, that could be interesting.
Home standby :-\

If it's closed for too long I can see the sandal wearing ecomentalists setting up camp on the runways... They have enough trouble keeping them away overnight.

They might be too busy on drone charging detail tonight... ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 08 January 2019, 18:52:55
All the idiots will be getting in on this, exactly what I expected, who actually requires a drone ?  Get a plane down then perhaps something will be done about these tools.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 08 January 2019, 19:30:23
All the idiots will be getting in on this, exactly what I expected, who actually requires a drone ?  Get a plane down then perhaps something will be done about these tools.

I'm at a loss to imagine what can be "done". You can make/buy an autonomous flying machine that can cause this sort of disruption for buttons and, once it's flying, there's little that can be done to stop it. Little that you'd risk doing airside at an airport, at any rate. The concept has been proven, the genie is out of the bottle and putting it back in is going to be quite a challenge. :(
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 January 2019, 19:49:28
All the idiots will be getting in on this, exactly what I expected, who actually requires a drone ?  Get a plane down then perhaps something will be done about these tools.
You don't actually 'require' nipples, yet you have two...

Go figure :D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Gaffers on 08 January 2019, 20:14:13
Just seen.  Missus is supposed to be working tomorrow, that could be interesting.
Home standby :-\

Not part of her contract unless she bids and gets awarded a standby line.  If the runway is still closed tomorrow they'll keep her at the airport until just before she goes 'illegal' on time under FAA rules then they'll board the aircraft, push back and switch off the engines.  They've done it before.  Should they cancel the flight she'll still get the flight hours just not the 'per diem'.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 January 2019, 20:22:21
Ah yes, gate departure time rather than wheels up... Crafty tinkers...  ::)

She'll be OK if they eventually can the flight as long as the station rep/manager doesn't make a PA announcement on the aircraft to the effect of 'we're really sorry, but you won't be flying to xyz because the crew are tired'...

Yes I have seen that happen and the aftermath :o
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 78bex on 08 January 2019, 21:31:54
All the idiots will be getting in on this, exactly what I expected, who actually requires a drone ?  Get a plane down then perhaps something will be done about these tools.

Presumably the ppl who are qualified commercial drone pilots   :)
There`a some good money to made once qualified, although someone told me that the Met Police are now putting all their own  photgraphers through this CAA approved course.
If all the hobby flyers now need to register with the CAA  >:( Might be only wise to actually train for & qualify to the commercial grade. The 3 day course is just over a grand

  https://www.heliguy.com/caa-drone-training-full-course-pfco-p3873 (https://www.heliguy.com/caa-drone-training-full-course-pfco-p3873)

 
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 January 2019, 22:37:58
The course is only part of it... You have to also submit an operation plan outlining everything from purpose to detailed risk assessments for your chosen field of operation. Passing the course is no guarantee of becoming licensed...

Incidentally, it would appear that you can't readily buy dedicated drone insurance for personal use... It gets tacked onto your house policy.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: 2boxerdogs on 08 January 2019, 22:52:49
All the idiots will be getting in on this, exactly what I expected, who actually requires a drone ?  Get a plane down then perhaps something will be done about these tools.

Presumably the ppl who are qualified commercial drone pilots   :)
There`a some good money to made once qualified, although someone told me that the Met Police are now putting all their own  photgraphers through this CAA approved course.
If all the hobby flyers now need to register with the CAA  >:( Might be only wise to actually train for & qualify to the commercial grade. The 3 day course is just over a grand

  https://www.heliguy.com/caa-drone-training-full-course-pfco-p3873 (https://www.heliguy.com/caa-drone-training-full-course-pfco-p3873)
.


Exactly what I meant, the ordinary man in the street doesn't require one we have our own drone operatives in the Prison Service for obvious reasons, the nosey parker using one to look into people's gardens etc don't , no problems with purposeful use by trained licensed insured users just can't be doing with idiots as for comparing drones to nipples , I rest my case.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 January 2019, 23:07:05
As long as you are allowed a caravan then Gaffers can wear lycra, TB can print bits of drones and STEMO can drive a diesel Astra. None of which serve any actual requirement...

That is the point that I overstated with my (tongue in cheek) nipple comparison  ::)

Point being that as long as people are free (within reason) to entertain themselves as they choose then they (and you) can continue to do just that ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 09 January 2019, 00:10:22
All the idiots will be getting in on this, exactly what I expected, who actually requires a drone ?  Get a plane down then perhaps something will be done about these tools.

Presumably the ppl who are qualified commercial drone pilots   :)
There`a some good money to made once qualified, although someone told me that the Met Police are now putting all their own  photgraphers through this CAA approved course.
If all the hobby flyers now need to register with the CAA  >:( Might be only wise to actually train for & qualify to the commercial grade. The 3 day course is just over a grand

  https://www.heliguy.com/caa-drone-training-full-course-pfco-p3873 (https://www.heliguy.com/caa-drone-training-full-course-pfco-p3873)

The CAA can barely cope with the workload of having everyone who actually pilots real aircraft registered with them ime. If everyone with a toy drone tries it they'll go pop. ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 09 January 2019, 09:46:28
I know Tilbo is frothing at the mouth again about people with drones but.. someone called in a sighting, correct? An unconfirmed sighting, presumably, given the short amount of time the airport was closed.

At this point I imagine this was a hoax call - you know, the same thing idiots have been doing for decades, since the invention of the telephone, for shits and giggles. "Hurr hurr, let's see if they shut Heathrow like they did Gatwick, hurr hurr *dials 999*"

I could call in a sighting about a remote controlled aircraft; I bet the same thing would happen.
I could call in a sighting about someone with an RPG; I bet the same thing would happen.
I could call in a sighting of a caravan parked on the runway .. ok, ok, I guess ATC would be able to spot that as a hoax pretty quickly ;D

Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 09 January 2019, 09:48:30
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 10 January 2019, 20:21:42
Incidentally, it would appear that you can't readily buy dedicated drone insurance for personal use... It gets tacked onto your house policy.
I have no issues in buying my insurance (3rd party liability only, obviously)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 10 January 2019, 21:17:31
Incidentally, it would appear that you can't readily buy dedicated drone insurance for personal use... It gets tacked onto your house policy.
I have no issues in buying my insurance (3rd party liability only, obviously)
Be interested to know where when the need arises ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 11 January 2019, 08:48:35
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 11 January 2019, 09:39:09
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D

 Exactly what is in kebab meat or is it better if I don't ask?..... :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 11 January 2019, 10:45:54
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D

 Exactly what is in kebab meat or is it better if I don't ask?..... :-X
Slow grilled spam...
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 11 January 2019, 10:59:15
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D

 Exactly what is in kebab meat or is it better if I don't ask?..... :-X
Slow grilled spam...

Yummy after 10 pints of Stella and with so much chilli sauce that you can't taste anything and get the ring of fire in the morning!  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 11 January 2019, 11:02:24
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D

 Exactly what is in kebab meat or is it better if I don't ask?..... :-X
Slow grilled spam...

Yummy after 10 pints of Stella and with so much chilli sauce that you can't taste anything and get the ring of fire in the morning!  ;D
Sure signs of a good night out the world over ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 11 January 2019, 13:07:45
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D

 Exactly what is in kebab meat or is it better if I don't ask?..... :-X

Actually, we have a kebab shop here which is so good that I go there sober, as well as pi##ed. :o

I have a Chicken shish, though, rather than the generic "meat".  ;D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: aaronjb on 11 January 2019, 13:34:48
I always chuckle at Chinese menus that contain the "Mixed Meat Special" or "Mixed Meat Chow Mein" .. they're always very non-specific on the mystery meat.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 11 January 2019, 13:35:28
I always chuckle at Chinese menus that contain the "Mixed Meat Special" or "Mixed Meat Chow Mein" .. they're always very non-specific on the mystery meat.
Probably less hassle from the RSPCA that way. :-X
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 11 January 2019, 16:55:55
Still, if we're banning things, let's ban caravans before we ban drones :P

Except the ones that sell kebabs, please!

Obviously! ;) ;D

 Exactly what is in kebab meat or is it better if I don't ask?..... :-X

Actually, we have a kebab shop here which is so good that I go there sober, as well as pi##ed. :o

I have a Chicken shish, though, rather than the generic "meat".  ;D
Yup, the shop in Brakkers is good as well. Avoid the van that hogs most of the limited parking spaces in town - matters not how many Stellas your supped, it still tastes of paraffin.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: TheBoy on 11 January 2019, 16:58:42
Incidentally, it would appear that you can't readily buy dedicated drone insurance for personal use... It gets tacked onto your house policy.
I have no issues in buying my insurance (3rd party liability only, obviously)
Be interested to know where when the need arises ;)
Sure, let me know then.  I wont post publically, due to the vitriolic nature of the anti-drone brigade, who don't actually grasp what a drone is, or the rules around them.
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 11 January 2019, 18:13:01
 :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Kevin Wood on 11 January 2019, 22:26:03

Yup, the shop in Brakkers is good as well. Avoid the van that hogs most of the limited parking spaces in town - matters not how many Stellas your supped, it still tastes of paraffin.

So would your cooking if you had nowhere to wash your hands after filling the generator up with diesel. ;)
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 12 January 2019, 12:35:19

Yup, the shop in Brakkers is good as well. Avoid the van that hogs most of the limited parking spaces in town - matters not how many Stellas your supped, it still tastes of paraffin.

So would your cooking if you had nowhere to wash your hands after filling the generator up with diesel. ;)
peeing on your hands gets rid of the diesel smell ,urine is a de-greaser  :y
but diesel and the spices hides the smell/taste of the badly stored rotting meat  :y
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 12 January 2019, 13:16:12

Yup, the shop in Brakkers is good as well. Avoid the van that hogs most of the limited parking spaces in town - matters not how many Stellas your supped, it still tastes of paraffin.

So would your cooking if you had nowhere to wash your hands after filling the generator up with diesel. ;)
peeing on your hands gets rid of the diesel smell ,urine is a de-greaser  :y
but diesel and the spices hides the smell/taste of the badly stored rotting meat  :y

Dave, the mind boggles. How do you know this stuff!? :o
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 12 January 2019, 13:47:06
I wouldn't eat at his pub...  :D
Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: dave the builder on 12 January 2019, 14:01:07

Yup, the shop in Brakkers is good as well. Avoid the van that hogs most of the limited parking spaces in town - matters not how many Stellas your supped, it still tastes of paraffin.

So would your cooking if you had nowhere to wash your hands after filling the generator up with diesel. ;)
peeing on your hands gets rid of the diesel smell ,urine is a de-greaser  :y
but diesel and the spices hides the smell/taste of the badly stored rotting meat  :y

Dave, the mind boggles. How do you know this stuff!? :o
I "get the call" when "everything goes to sh**"   :y
roughly translated ,if something breaks down,in pubs,cafes,friends/families home etc,and after the ill educated and don't have a clues have tried to fix it ,they call me . ;D
I've seen the poor hygiene ,food rotting ,bad practice etc etc 

and everyone knows if you pee on grease covered washing up ,it cuts through all the grease .....
that's why kitchen sinks are 900mm high ,level with  men's "de-greaser dispenser"
 :D ;D

Title: Re: Gatwick
Post by: Varche on 12 January 2019, 14:04:13
Urgh, who you goner call? Pee grease busters.