Drones over Gatwick

[Fisheruk]

 Think they may have learnt their lesson now and probably protect them with Carbon fibre. Remember Concorde was a design of 60 years ago.

[JohnfromUK]

IF the Police are now saying that there may never have been a drone ......... we are getting very close to Orwell's 1984 where Winston Smith was engaged on "rewriting newspaper articles to ensure history forever matches with the party line".

As I understood the original reports;

• There were senior airport management reporting on live Radio 4 that they could see a drone "now as we are speaking"  (I heard that report live myself)
• A drone was apparently seen close enough to the Air Traffic Control for them to identify the type
• Video and still footage was captured and made the 'on line' news
• A crashed drone was apparently recovered near the perimeter fence

The Police then arrest (apparently on a tip off) two suspects - without talking to his employer who can apparently provide a complete allibi - or neighbours who think it inconceivable and hold them for 24 hours before dropping all further action ........ then they are now saying there may never have been a drone!

It is also not in the airports interests to close for many hours unless they are confident that there is indeed a threat to safety.  Such decisions are not taken lighly.

The whole thing is getting beyond belief.

[Jaymo]

51 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Are then not usually above the wheels. 

 

 

Thank you Sir

Did you know, a single insect is enough to cause major problems......... think on that chaps

Points for those who guess where correctly

[spandit]

Pitot tube or static port?

[walshie]

19 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

IF the Police are now saying that there may never have been a drone ......... we are getting very close to Orwell's 1984 where Winston Smith was engaged on "rewriting newspaper articles to ensure history forever matches with the party line".

As I understood the original reports;

• There were senior airport management reporting on live Radio 4 that they could see a drone "now as we are speaking"  (I heard that report live myself)
• A drone was apparently seen close enough to the Air Traffic Control for them to identify the type
• Video and still footage was captured and made the 'on line' news
• A crashed drone was apparently recovered near the perimeter fence

The Police then arrest (apparently on a tip off) two suspects - without talking to his employer who can apparently provide a complete allibi - or neighbours who think it inconceivable and hold them for 24 hours before dropping all further action ........ then they are now saying there may never have been a drone!

It is also not in the airports interests to close for many hours unless they are confident that there is indeed a threat to safety.  Such decisions are not taken lighly.

The whole thing is getting beyond belief.

The whole thing stinks. The UFO theory is more plausible than some of the tripe we've been fed. The police are calling ATC liars and it would seem none of the police or military saw it either. The "crashed drone" was just another red herring or planted to make the authorities look slightly less incompetent. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

All very odd!

[ordnance]

Quote

An officer investigating the drone chaos at Gatwick Airport says there is no footage of the device which sparked it and it is "a possibility" there never was one. Asked about speculation there was never such a drone flown over the airport, Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley told the BBC: "Of course, that's a possibility. We are working with human beings saying they have seen something.

Interesting how people were so quick to judge and call for bans etc on drones. They will be very hard to shoot or bring down in some other way if they were never there. 

 

[spandit]

Hard to shoot down anyway

 

[Jaymo]

37 minutes ago, spandit said:

Pitot tube or static port?

Now now, you know your not allowed to enter the comp, mr

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, Jaymo said:

Thank you Sir

Did you know, a single insect is enough to cause major problems......... think on that chaps

Points for those who guess where correctly

air speed thingy sticky out tube.........

 

or a wasp down the trousers of the pilot............

Edited December 23, 2018 by ditchman

[Mighty Ruler]

The BBC showed footage of a man made object that appeared to be flying under control. Are the Police saying this was fake? Much as I distrust the BBC I can’t see them faking this.

[Jaymo]

Just now, ditchman said:

air speed thingy sticky out tube.........

Drum rollllllllllll

Correct, but not just airspeed Sir

(might have to withhold your trophy as maybe you just did a 50:50 from Spandits post) 

[ditchman]

Just now, Jaymo said:

Drum rollllllllllll

Correct, but not just airspeed Sir

(might have to withhold your trophy as maybe you just did a 50:50 from Spandits post) 

look here...dont acuse me of plagerismn.................im a man in da shed ...and i know stuff..........

[Jaymo]

14 minutes ago, ditchman said:

look here...dont acuse me of plagerismn.................im a man in da shed ...and i know stuff..........

Ok, you can have the plinth mr know it all

[grrclark]

24 minutes ago, ditchman said:

air speed thingy sticky out tube.........

 

or a wasp down the trousers of the pilot............

Combine both answers and say a wasp in the pilots sticky out tube, that would have similar catastrophic impact I would well imagine.

[ditchman]

5 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Ok, you can have the plinth mr know it all

ohh....cheers.....a plinth...wow..........................keep it and put your bloody fridge on it..

 

Happy Christmas  

[Jaymo]

You too matey..... now, about that fridge handle

[krugerandsmith]

9 hours ago, walshie said:

The whole thing stinks. The UFO theory is more plausible than some of the tripe we've been fed. The police are calling ATC liars and it would seem none of the police or military saw it either. The "crashed drone" was just another red herring or planted to make the authorities look slightly less incompetent. 

Someone is doing a cover-up.  Look up the ... O'hare Airport .. UFO incident   hundreds of witnesses.

[walshie]

8 hours ago, Mighty Ruler said:

The BBC showed footage of a man made object that appeared to be flying under control. Are the Police saying this was fake? Much as I distrust the BBC I can’t see them faking this.

Look at that footage again without expecting it to be a drone because the BBC said so and it looks just like a bird. 

[Hamster]

8 hours ago, Mighty Ruler said:

The BBC showed footage of a man made object that appeared to be flying under control. Are the Police saying this was fake? Much as I distrust the BBC I can’t see them faking this.

I can, "news" comes from a central HQ somewhere and gets distributed to the various networks, how else can you explain the fact that the same "story" suddenly gets to do the rounds via the many different TV channels with the only difference being the presenter ! Time after time important subjects that have clearly been "sexed up" and fine tuned for home consumption are reported in an almost identical narrative throughout the msm, you'd think if there was such a thing as independent journalism that at least one of the reporters on the ground would report events differently. 

It's now looking highly likely that the whole thing was an elaborate Russian drone meme.

 

 

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

21 minutes ago, walshie said:

Look at that footage again without expecting it to be a drone because the BBC said so and it looks just like a bird. 

That may be so - but there are so many accounts, pieces of evidence, some close sightings (I heard at least 67 formally reported), many sightings by airport staff (who have knowledge of the 'usual' hazards and quite possibly some training about drones in some cases), plus a recovered crashed drone.  In my view too much evidence to ignore - especially when the safety of aircraft may be involved.

[walshie]

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That may be so - but there are so many accounts, pieces of evidence, some close sightings (I heard at least 67 formally reported), many sightings by airport staff (who have knowledge of the 'usual' hazards and quite possibly some training about drones in some cases), plus a recovered crashed drone.  In my view too much evidence to ignore - especially when the safety of aircraft may be involved.

Of course, safety is paramount, but if this is some sort of feeble cover-up story, they aren't doing a very good job of it. Has anyone heard anything about this "crashed drone" since it was first mentioned? Have we heard from the person who supposedly identified the model of drone as it was so close? Why didn't he take a photo? Has he been told to keep quiet, and if so why? Was it a made up story in the first place? There's so many possibilities, but i don;t think we;ve heard the truth and probably never will.

How can the police say there may not have been a drone in light of all these witnesses? For them to say that, they are either saying the witnesses are all mistaken or lying, or as said before, trying to cover something up. Badly.

The complete lack of photos and a grainy video of a bird speaks volumes to me. My own view is someone probably saw something and chinese whispers, people eager for their 5 minutes of fame and press embellishments did the rest.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Could it all have been either a hoax or someone thinking they saw a drone and then everyone jumping on the proverbial bandwagon?

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, walshie said:

There's so many possibilities, but i don;t think we;ve heard the truth and probably never will.

I've just picked a small quote to 'link' the posts, but - I can only go on what is reported in the press/broadcasts and radio interviews.

I think the police are throwing up a smokescreen to distract from the two facts that they have got nowhere (as far as we know) and have made a huge mistake arresting a couple who were very easily shown (alibi) to be innocent - so the "cover up" is one of covering up/distracting from police 'bumbling' (to put it politely).

The reports of a crashed drone are still in the press.

I heard the airport COO live on radio 4 saying he could see a drone over the runway actually as he was speaking.  Now he could be mistaken - but he is a senior man in a post of great responsibility - and so should be as reliable as they come - similarly - all of the other reports including airport staff, air traffic staff, police themselves are very unlikely to all be mistaken.

The good part is that there has been no accident/loss of life.  The stakes here are VERY high.  Imagine if it had been a drone - and they had chosen to ignore it - and there had been an accident; many hundreds could have been killed - passengers, crew and people on the ground - and the airport closed for perhaps many days if the plane had crashed onto the airport.  No one would ever take that risk to avoid (admittedly damaging and inconvenient) delays.

The actions the authorities carried out have so far resulted with everyone safe ....... and that is something to be thankful for.

[walshie]

I'm glad Gatwick took the precautions it did. Safety comes above a few people with egg on their face. I've never said any different.

Unfortunately what's in the press is speculation and relaying 2nd or 3rd hand stories about who supposedly saw what, They've proved how little they know by releasing the names of 2 innocent people just because a neighbour pointed the finger.

I'm not an investigator, but if I spoke to the 67 eyewitnesses (seems a very low figure out of 100,000+) I'm sure most would be relaying stories repeating what their mate saw. Why have none of these people spoken directly to the press? I'm sure the papers are itching to have something to print. it's all "someone saw this, who told them, who told the police" etc. etc.

100,000 people just sitting there with nothing to do but look out of the window, but they couldn't take a photo? Unlikely, bit possible due to the distances involved.

Professional newsteams with cameras that can zoom in many miles (I saw the camera at Wimbledon zoom into the London Eye like it was 10 feet away) not taking a pic? No, I don't buy that. They had nothing else to report expect little Timmy missing his flight to Lapland, so a photo or video of a drone would have been a very high priority. The only way they didn't take footage is if there was nothing to photograph.