Gatwick drone incident

[Geoff S]

From the same report Peter Christy mentions:

"He added there was "always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place", but they were working on a range of information from members of the public, police officers and staff working at Gatwick who had reported otherwise."

So it could even be a case of 'Beast of Bodmin Moor' syndrome where observers see what they either expect of want to see.

Geoff

[Bob Cotsford]

I foresee increased landing fees which will off course be passed on to the traveller.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Who else other than airport users should ideally pay for what has happened and for future systems?

If it were the tax payer, all those who do not travel by air or use the airport would be paying for something that is of little benefit to them.

You may argue investors or shareholders of the airports and airlines, if so, would they invest, if all they are providing a public subsidy.

[Don Fry]

The police officers at Gatwick, are employed by Sussex Police, but paid for by Gatwick.

The airports are hugely profitable monopolies. I can't for one moment think they will pusuade this government, assuming they can get 30 seconds to make their case, given their "other" problem, that they will get some free cash.

[Don Fry]

In fairness to Mr Grayling, all transport ministers are in that mould. Like being appointed Home Secretary, without the gravitas.

[Don Fry]

I have just seen the online version of the Mail. (Shudder). Now being ex plod, I am entitled to a bit of cynicism.

First, the bloke in uniform, described as Detective Chief Superintendat Tingley, is in uniform. I would not have thought one of they even possesses a uniform. Such is the Mail.. but have you ever seen such a rabbit in headlamps sight.

Last weekend a drone was something wot makes love to a queen bee. Now he knows a very small amount more.

I'm picking on him.

Also of note, is the child office holder of CEO, Gatwick Airport.

In safe hands no doubt.

[Peter Christy]

I see the Mail Online is now carrying out a frantic "Reverse Ferret" ( (c) Private Eye), presumably to ward off any possible legal action by the now cleared couple, and turning their ire on the police! You couldn't make it up!

--

Pete

[Cuban8]

Take a look at Bruce Simpson's latest take on all this on Xjet.

[ken anderson.]

another victim...talking about Gatwick.....IF there wasn't any drone -this thread has been about nothing...……..

 

ken anderson....ne...1....Christmas dept.

Edited By ken anderson. on 24/12/2018 09:18:02

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Mowerman]

The couple who were arrested have now been released without charge but not until after their names and photographs were plastered all over newspapers. That should get a few legal aid lawyers rubbing their hands together.

[Andy.I]

Today's Telegraph questions whether this could be a hoax...

We seem to have been subjected to a number of stories and pictures in the press but there has been a remarkable lack of confirmation...

One story was how the drone operator had taunted the control tower by circling it. Was this report true, and if it was then how isn't it a confirmed sighting as it would presumably have been seen my multiple witnesses?

The report of a cyclist dressed in hi-viz with two drones on a road near the airport could be part of a hoax, as could the discovery of a "crashed" drone. I'd suggest that both would be easy to stage.

Edited By Andy.I on 24/12/2018 09:40:07

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Posted by David Mellor on 24/12/2018 09:39:32:

So it may be for the best that they didn't have various bits of their anatomy chopped off in retribution.... as some posters here were calling for.

Ah, you beat me to it!

Isn't it a good thing we have the judicial process?

[Bob Cotsford]

In fairness David, I think the mutilations would only have been called for on proof of guilt. I still think an undercover anti-terrorist op was a possibility what with armed units, heli patrols etc. The truth will no doubt emerge in time whatever it is.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[pete taylor]

Things that make you go Hmm.....

Given all of the recent talk of cyber/hybrid warfare, does anyone imaging for a moment that any government would admit to having a major part of it's infrastructure totally disrupted like this one was?

It appears that Birmingham airport was subject to a "fault" with it's electronic flight plan system that caused a shut down for a couple of hours yesterday.

Now we learn that there were no sightings or other evidence of a drone over Gatwick.

Call me cynical if you like....

Edited By pete taylor on 24/12/2018 10:19:25

[Paul Marsh]

A Drone incident. It was an official drone flight and the drone operative informed the authorities.

**LINK**

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[leccyflyer]

"Bruce's video" seems to be full of half-baked conclusions and assertions. He says he's glad that he isn't a model flyer in the UK, so that's one thing that we do agree on - I'm glad that he isn't a model flyer in the UK as well, with those sort of attitudes and hyperbolic exclamations being aired so publically.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by supertigrefan on 24/12/2018 10:32:38:

Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 24/12/2018 09:52:30:

Isn't it a good thing we have the judicial process?

Isn't it just.....

Released without charge doesn't mean innocent, it means there was insufficient evidence to make a case, how many perpetrators have been released through lack of evidence? Even justice has it's failings.

In this case released without charge means innocent- there is nothing pointing towards the couple having had anything to do with the alleged incidents at Gatwick.

[Martian]

Fake news then