Drones over Gatwick

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, walshie said:

The only way they didn't take footage is if there was nothing to photograph.

I don't think that is so.  Gatwick is 1600 acres and two miles long.  The public/press are only allowed in a small part of the area.  Although reports say multiple drones would have been used, it is likely that at any given time there was probably only one in the air - and that far from continuously - as it only needs to be seen from time to time to serve to keep the airport closed (if we assume that was the objective).

Cameras like those used to film wildlife at long distance are huge and heavy - and with the high magnification required, are very hard indeed to follow a moving target.  Imagine being asked to film a single large bird like a buzzard, that sometimes visits a 1600 acre farm - and being told you must do it without leaving the farm yard.  You would be very lucky to get any good shots.  Wildlife filming is carefully pre surveyed and planned - and uses huge and powerful lenses.  Birds in flight are difficult to capture even given lots of time.

I spend as little time in airports as possible, but my recollection is that it would be hard with normal photographic kit let alone phones to get decent photos even of full sized aircraft using the runways.

Also - if you are stuck at an airport due to drone activity (as the PA system will have told you), if you did see a drone through the window - it woud be a case of 'look there it is' rather than making a report.  I think with 67 formal reports (that is the number I have read) over say 36 hours, of which maybe 18 hours daylight(?) - that is about a report every 20 minutes on average - which I think quite a lot.

[toontastic]

Can anybody remember a few years ago there was a story about a goose or a swan being shot on a village pond.

It had been reported in the press how a car pulled up fired some shots then sped away. It was even covered on Jeremy Vine with locals talking about the incident. Many in the village reported seeing the car or hearing shots.

The police and the RSPCA investigated and the dead bird was taken away for an autopsy and found to have not died by shooting.

Many who had previously gave interviews to the press admitted they hadn't actually seen or heard the incident but we're sure they had been told about it from someone who had seen it happen. Further investigation failed to find anyone who actually saw anything and nobody could remember who told them about it.

Edited December 24, 2018 by toontastic

[panoma1]

10 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Can anybody remember a few years ago there was a story about a goose or a swan being shot on a village pond.

It had been reported in the press how a car pulled up fired some shots then sped away. It was even covered on Jeremy Vine with locals talking about the incident. Many in the village reported seeing the car or hearing shots.

The police and the RSPCA investigated and the dead bird was taken away for an autopsy and found to have not died by shooting.

Many who had previously gave interviews to the press admitted they hadn't actually seen or heard the incident but we're sure they had been told about it from someone who had seen it happen. Further investigation failed to find anyone who actually saw anything and nobody could remember who told them about it.

Sounds like infectious hysteria! Lol!..... seriously, I now look at all reports such as this with suspicion......the antis seem to blame every unexplained animal or bird death on shooting!

[walshie]

26 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Also - if you are stuck at an airport due to drone activity (as the PA system will have told you), if you did see a drone through the window - it woud be a case of 'look there it is' rather than making a report.  I think with 67 formal reports (that is the number I have read) over say 36 hours, of which maybe 18 hours daylight(?) - that is about a report every 20 minutes on average - which I think quite a lot.

If I saw a drone through the window, i'd have taken pictures and video. Even on my ancient phone there would be better video footage than the one video (of a bird) and better pics than the none we have currently. Don't forget the number of plane spotters scattered around the perimeter, all with cameras.

The 67 reports doesn't mean there was a sighting every 20 minutes. It could have been the initial one mistaken sighting with 66 "look there it is" in agreement and 99,900 people not seeing anything.

I agree the airport is huge and perhaps not ideal for photos, but the guy who reckoned it was close enough to ID the make of drone could have taken a pic and I assume there were plenty of others in the control tower with him who also chose not to take a pic.

I don't actually think there was a drone. I don't believe they found a crashed one either. Why would it be crashed? Why was it found days after the incident happened and conveniently after the couple were released? I don't believe the sighting of a cyclist in hi-vis with 2 drones either. How on earth could a cyclist pack away a 4ft drone and another and cycle off and why didn't the witness report it at the time? There probably was a cyclist in hi-vis somewhere repairing a puncture and the wheel turned into a drone in the witnesses mind after the incident.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

45 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Can anybody remember a few years ago there was a story about a goose or a swan being shot on a village pond.

It had been reported in the press how a car pulled up fired some shots then sped away. It was even covered on Jeremy Vine with locals talking about the incident. Many in the village reported seeing the car or hearing shots.

The police and the RSPCA investigated and the dead bird was taken away for an autopsy and found to have not died by shooting.

Many who had previously gave interviews to the press admitted they hadn't actually seen or heard the incident but we're sure they had been told about it from someone who had seen it happen. Further investigation failed to find anyone who actually saw anything and nobody could remember who told them about it.

Yes that was a set up and a half from some presumptuous anti that thought all their Christmases had come at once, only to see their hopes of a campaign dashed!

[timmytree]

This phenomena of a "sighting" and subsequent reports is well known.

EG. In the 1950s 2 East London schoolgirls skipped school to go swimming /sunbathing by the Thames. 1 of them went for a swim and disappeared between 2 barges. Her friend panicked and went home. When the !st girl was reported missing by her parents the 2nd girl said she had seen her in town. Various other schoolfriends and adults reported seeing the missing kid over the next few days so it was presumed she was alive and well although absent from home.

Eventually though her body was found and recovered from underneath the barge where she had become trapped proving all the "sightings" were just people jumping on the bandwagon.

[Mighty Ruler]

3 hours 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. 

Looks man made to me, surely the BBC could enhance the film  to get clearer picture of it. 

[walshie]

54 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said:

Looks man made to me, surely the BBC could enhance the film  to get clearer picture of it. 

Really? It looks like a bird to me, but there's also nothing in the video to show you where and when it was taken.

I wonder why the BBC don't want to enhance it? 

Edited December 24, 2018 by walshie

[old'un]

Well on my screen it certainly looks like a drone, if I zoom in I can see the typical cross shape of a drone and there is no wing/bird like movement of the prop arms...https://videos.metro.co.uk/video/met/2018/12/20/1621030128090103998/960x540_MP4_1621030128090103998.mp4

[blackbird]

Only in Great Britain 😂😂😂 well I do hope Sussex police pick up the tab for this balls up.

Edited December 24, 2018 by blackbird

[JohnfromUK]

27 minutes ago, old'un said:

Well on my screen it certainly looks like a drone,

I think you are right and I would be very surprised if many airport staff (including presumably those who constantly monitor for bird strike hazards) were wrong.  These people who run airports know what they are doing.  They have to to ensure that the huge numbers of people passing through and so many flights, ground movements and refuelling etc are carried out 365 days a year in safety.

[Hamster]

Bit like that Essex lion that turned out to be a ginger moggy. 😂 😹   

[Mighty Ruler]

1 hour ago, walshie said:

Really? It looks like a bird to me, but there's also nothing in the video to show you where and when it was taken.

I wonder why the BBC don't want to enhance it? 

Yes, that’s why I questioned the BBC’s reliability. I’d like to know who filmed it, was it the BBC themselves or did they obtain it elsewhere?

The Police have just done a U turn and admitted there was a drone after all, after they had investigated a light on top of a crane.

[old man]

I'm just waiting for the film. Yawn.

What a fiasco.

[toontastic]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Only in Great Britain 😂😂😂 well I do hope Sussex police pick up the tab for this balls up.

Surely if anybody should pick up the tab it's the 67 members of the public who reported seeing a drone. The police can only act on information given to them.

[Mighty Ruler]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

Well on my screen it certainly looks like a drone, if I zoom in I can see the typical cross shape of a drone and there is no wing/bird like movement of the prop arms...https://videos.metro.co.uk/video/met/2018/12/20/1621030128090103998/960x540_MP4_1621030128090103998.mp4

 

That’s different to the footage I’ve seen, so that’s at least 2 videos of it.

[Mice!]

6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't think that is so.  Gatwick is 1600 acres and two miles long.  The public/press are only allowed in a small part of the area.  Although reports say multiple drones would have been used, it is likely that at any given time there was probably only one in the air - and that far from continuously - as it only needs to be seen from time to time to serve to keep the airport closed (if we assume that was the objective).

Cameras like those used to film wildlife at long distance are huge and heavy - and with the high magnification required, are very hard indeed to follow a moving target.  Imagine being asked to film a single large bird like a buzzard, that sometimes visits a 1600 acre farm - and being told you must do it without leaving the farm yard.  You would be very lucky to get any good shots.  Wildlife filming is carefully pre surveyed and planned - and uses huge and powerful lenses.  Birds in flight are difficult to capture even given lots of time.

I spend as little time in airports as possible, but my recollection is that it would be hard with normal photographic kit let alone phones to get decent photos even of full sized aircraft using the runways.

Also - if you are stuck at an airport due to drone activity (as the PA system will have told you), if you did see a drone through the window - it woud be a case of 'look there it is' rather than making a report.  I think with 67 formal reports (that is the number I have read) over say 36 hours, of which maybe 18 hours daylight(?) - that is about a report every 20 minutes on average - which I think quite a lot.

Two pictures taken with an iPhone , someone would have got a good picture if there was something to photo.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Two pictures taken with an iPhone , someone would have got a good picture if there was something to photo.

You are right - you can take good photos with an iPhone (or similar).  But you have to be in range.  An airfield doesn't allow people to just wander about.  It is also quite possible (I don't know) that personal phones are prohibited in places like the control tower to avoid distractions.

[Danger-Mouse]

Solved

[Mice!]

33 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said:

Solved

Nah it was Corbyn 😉 

[MarcMaxus]

On 23/12/2018 at 18:26, thepasty said:

any decent mutlirotor system will sort itself in a couple seconds after being hit and if its got 6 or more motors it can lose a couple with little ill effect.

I started building my own about 10 years ago before you could by off the shelf ready to go "drones", even back then with decent gyros, accelerometers, gps and even barometers (for alt hold) you could build a rock steady take a few knocks system.

If they're decent systems being uses all that needs to be done is use direction 2.4ghz (or whatever is being used to control the system) to sever the control, once down the "drone" should go into fail safe and fly back to its point of origin where the offendending operator can be located.

Sorry,  it definitely wouldn't. If a drone with anything that upsets the balance, it's dropping like a whores drawers. Quad or not, upset just one prop, it's gone

Edited December 24, 2018 by MarcMaxus

[bruno22rf]

Would it be worth mentioning to the Police that , on my way back from the Fawcett Inn last night, I saw a pair of Unicorns flying over Heathrow?.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

Would it be worth mentioning to the Police that , on my way back from the Fawcett Inn last night, I saw a pair of Unicorns flying over Heathrow?.

No contact the Mail on Sunday, cut out the middlemen!

[ShootingEgg]

Now the two that go arrested are being pathetic about it. There's another 'going to sue because we can' claim

[JohnfromUK]

If I was arrested on an unsubstantiated 'tip off', held for 24 hours and my home ransacked, laptop taken - when I had a complete alibi easily available from my employer - I think I would be suing.

Taking into custody for an hour or so and sealing the home whilst alibis etc are checked would have been more proportionate.  After all - in this particular crime, once in custody, he couldn't offend further, couldn't contact any possible 'associates', so a short delay whilst suitable checks are made would have been sensible.