Jump to content

Drones over Gatwick


defender
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, amateur said:

Just to put a human side on this.

Daughter, SIL and the two youngest grand-daughters were booked to fly today from Gatwick to Lapland to see Father Christmas.

The last message that we had was that they were on a coach from Gatwick to Luton and the littluns think that it is a great adventure.

We've not had an update yet, so we are hoping that the next news will be from Lapland.

I feel for them, its a rubbish situation.

I wonder how a compensation system will work with this, will holiday insurance cover it ?

Please let the perp whos done this have money or property that can be taken off them to cover a tiny part of the millions this has cost people and companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 472
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

If Lord Adenoids does indeed know that ”What’s happening at Gatwick is just a foretaste of what would be happening across all ports and airports in the event of the no deal Brexit”, he obviously has prior information about criminal activities being planned by the drone operators.

 

Is he likely to do his duty and hand over that information immediately to the police?  

 

His Lordship’s contribution was apparently circulated via social media, and I think we all know the four-letter past participle of the verb “to twitter”.

 

Edited by McSpredder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcMaxus said:

Like a pigeon then??? Lol

😂  😂   My thoughts exactly. 😂 😂

Remember Arnold said If it bleeds we can kill it. A specialist machine gun firing .22 tracer subs will have that thing down quick enough even at 400 feet high, if you can see it you can shoot it down and the whole point for the attacker is to make sure people and cameras saw it so it would have had to be flown low enough. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hamster said:

😂  😂   My thoughts exactly. 😂 😂

Remember Arnold said If it bleeds we can kill it. A specialist machine gun firing .22 tracer subs will have that thing down quick enough even at 400 feet high, if you can see it you can shoot it down and the whole point for the attacker is to make sure people and cameras saw it so it would have had to be flown low enough. 

 

Right o. Machine guns down shooting down drones. 

Gatwick does have a sizable population living nearby and a fair few thousand that work there. Not sure they would appreciate the few hundred or thousand spent 40g lumps of lead raining down on them, their property or the multi million pound air frames that would all need checking so they dont depressurise at altitude. The ones of course that either miss the drone or pass through the thin plastic casing with minimal effect to the projectile. 

 

Wouldn't it be better if they just now invested in the kit that brings them down without any of that? The need for it has been highlighted by the inability of the authorities to do anything without it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the might of the British forces between them could not bring this crazy stunt to a conclusion. We had virtually every government agency involved yet they were given the runaround by a drone operator. Let us all be grateful it was not a terrorist behind it. Instances like this make me feel my safety is in good hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

Right o. Machine guns down shooting down drones. 

Gatwick does have a sizable population living nearby and a fair few thousand that work there. Not sure they would appreciate the few hundred or thousand spent 40g lumps of lead raining down on them, their property or the multi million pound air frames that would all need checking so they dont depressurise at altitude. The ones of course that either miss the drone or pass through the thin plastic casing with minimal effect to the projectile. 

 

Wouldn't it be better if they just now invested in the kit that brings them down without any of that? The need for it has been highlighted by the inability of the authorities to do anything without it. 

It doesn't have to be the same 40 grain subs we use, there is no need for accuracy, only reliable feed through at a crazy rate of fire. There is every reason to believe someone out there already has such systems developed where a small calibre light bullet, say 28 grain could be used to spray hundreds of rounds very quickly to disable a drone is such a situation. There is no way the fall back from these are going to be materially dangerous enough to worry about when the alternative is so devastating. 

There are Youtube videos of regular guys having modified guns to fire .22's at unbelievable rpm's, when needs must. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, moondoggy said:

Because chickens aren't a problem, they can’t fly! 

reminds me of the  Buccaneer on exercise in Nevada who returned early with a birdstrike.

The groundcrew asked "Did  you see what type of bird it was ?"

"A chicken ! " the pilot replied

"But chickens can't fly ! "

"I was rather low at the time ! " 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Genuine question because I simply don't know and don't want to come across as all conspiratorial...............

How did they know so early on (or even now) that it wasn't a terrorist related attack ? 

Guessed answer:

Because there was no attempt to cause damage, loss of life, fire/explosion etc.  - and also they do often know of 'probable' terrorist activity by monitoring communications/suspects - and terrorists usually try and claim responsibility quite fast.  Also there may have been known threats from climate change/eco types against air travel.

I suspect it would be quite easy for terrorist organisations (assuming they had access to those drones) to have delivered a small bomb type payload, but it would have had to have been quite light as drones can't carry much payload. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hamster said:

It doesn't have to be the same 40 grain subs we use, there is no need for accuracy, only reliable feed through at a crazy rate of fire. There is every reason to believe someone out there already has such systems developed where a small calibre light bullet, say 28 grain could be used to spray hundreds of rounds very quickly to disable a drone is such a situation. There is no way the fall back from these are going to be materially dangerous enough to worry about when the alternative is so devastating. 

There are Youtube videos of regular guys having modified guns to fire .22's at unbelievable rpm's, when needs must. 

Are you suggesting something like quad Rimfire miniguns mounted on the back of a truck or similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Guessed answer:

Because there was no attempt to cause damage, loss of life, fire/explosion etc.  - and also they do often know of 'probable' terrorist activity by monitoring communications/suspects - and terrorists usually try and claim responsibility quite fast.  Also there may have been known threats from climate change/eco types against air travel.

I suspect it would be quite easy for terrorist organisations (assuming they had access to those drones) to have delivered a small bomb type payload, but it would have had to have been quite light as drones can't carry much payload. 

That sounds plausible, that they knew because they'd been warned but just saving face in how inept they are in dealing with it. The rest, not so convinced if I'm honest, there is zero NEED for any kind of bomb when the mere presence of such devices can bring such misery and financial loss. 

4 minutes ago, stumfelter said:

Are you suggesting something like quad Rimfire miniguns mounted on the back of a truck or similar?

I'm suggesting something, anything, that sprays a thousand bullets at the things so we don't need to beg high bird specialists to have a go with goose loads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hamster said:

The rest, not so convinced if I'm honest, there is zero NEED for any kind of bomb when the mere presence of such devices can bring such misery and financial loss. 

I think terrorists like the 'terror' element from a bomb.  A drone carrying a small explosive device detonated beside/above a refuelling tanker/aeroplane would make BIG headlines.  Since they seem (for a period anyway) to have had full access to fly where and when they wanted, that would not have been hard.  I imagine the size of device that could be carried would not be very effective against buildings (I'm no expert!!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sportsbob said:

Here is a theory,

Handguns were banned for private target shooting because the powers in charge don`t want us to have the ability to defend ourselves against there oppression. It was reported that Hamiltons certificate had expired and renewal had been refused weeks prior to him doing what he did so he was actually in possession of illegally held firearms and not a licensed firearm holder. Weight to this theory is added in the form of current EU legislation and proposals presently being put forward to remove all private ownership of firearms.

Model flying will be banned because they don`t want us to have the ability to use the technology it offers again in the form of defence, reconnaissance or even attack.

Why would the powers in charge want this? simple there are too many people and modern technology keeps us informed of what is really happening even if the media propaganda machine censors the truth.

Way off topic, but I think you’ll find handguns were banned for the sake of political expediency following their use to murder a classroom of kids and a teacher. If your theory held water we wouldn’t have the firearms we have today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Scully said:

If your theory held water we wouldn’t have the firearms we have today. 

You cant disarm the populace overnight, it has to be done slowly, using whatever means and events available.
We have limited  private firearm ownership today, tomorrow is another matter.

I have no doubt that the drone laws will be tightened up after this, the new legislation was in the Europipeline anyway.
But will it stop rogue drone operators from doing this again ?
Just like a total UK wide handgun ban stopped handgun crime ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...