About time....
- Thread starter LUIS MARTINEZ
- Start date
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
Apparently Scotland Yard is not what it used to be...
Boss reveals agony of dad quizzed for 36 hours over Gatwick drone chaos
Update-drone finally shot down by RAF
Boss reveals agony of dad quizzed for 36 hours over Gatwick drone chaos
Update-drone finally shot down by RAF
Last edited:
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Turns out it might all be BS. Police now not sure there ever really was any drone....woops. 
It won't matter in the end. Public perception is being cemented.
Police say it is 'a possibility there was never a drone at Gatwick'
It won't matter in the end. Public perception is being cemented.
Police say it is 'a possibility there was never a drone at Gatwick'
I agree. Drone or bin bag, our profession has been done great harm by this incident and it will take a long time, if ever, to recover.Turns out it might all be BS. Police now not sure there ever really was any drone....woops.
It won't matter in the end. Public perception is being cemented.
Police say it is 'a possibility there was never a drone at Gatwick'
Earnest Ward
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2018
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 83
Or, alternately, it may have been a great service (all be it, unintentional.)
For one thing, after being held in custody for 36 hours, the couple were found to be completely innocent (Turns out he was at work, with multiple witnesses, during the whole affair.) and released. So, maybe authorities will rethink the whole knee-jerk, airport closure thing. After all, we don't see major airports closed (with accompanying international media hype) when birds are spotted - and we can all name at least one case of a commercial aircraft being downed by birdstrikes. (Yep, think Hudson River.)
Second, this might be the wake-up call that gets international standards for drones, universal passive ID, and automated low altitude tracking & traffic alert "fast tracked" by government agencies (FAA, CAA, etc.) and stakeholders working in concert.
Anyway, 2019 could turn out to be a very exciting and productive year (I hope.)
I can see where you are coming from, but as you say either way will make it interesting.
We've actually been flying in a C172 (as in a manned aircraft) when a busy airport is completely shut down (only for 30 minutes) for deer in the area. Fortunately I was only burning 100LL fuel so it wasn't a major set-back for the Jet Jockey's were not happy holding like that.
Fortunately wild life (birds, deer etc) don't tend to stay in the area and have better things to do than intentionally disrupt airport operations.
I'm not saying this IS or IS NOT a legitimate sUAS operation. I wasn't there but the risk to manned aircraft from sUAS is a very real and serious matter.
Other than some "political BS" what is the single biggest BUZZ word in the world right now? Yep the word "DRONE". You could write a story about human waste and add the word "drone" in the title and your # of hits would skyrocket exponentially just because of the BUZZ word and ridiculous media hype. Just because we don't hear about animals closing airports doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen for dozens of hours on end.
Earnest Ward
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2018
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 83
BigA107, I agree with all you've said, except that I would insert the word "potential" ahead of "risk" in your last sentence.
As a former Part 135 pilot (Cessna 402s, Beech 18s, and Beech 200s) I've encountered brief delays and warnings similar to your experience. But those generally involved corroborated sightings and - as you stated - were short in duration. Prior to this event, the only multi-day shutdown I can remember occurring in my lifetime was following the tragic events of 9/11.
There is a very real need for all stakeholders to work in unison to develop and adopt sUAS universal ID, UTM, and even C-UAS. And the media, some politicians, and self-serving special interest groups will always feed the hype. (The media still go on about the "dangers of air travel" while all but ignoring the far more deadly risks of travel by road.) But the aviation community (airlines, pilots, and airport authorities) should be above such hysteria.
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
I agree with you, @Earnest Ward.
Incidents like Gatwick are serious with regard to not only safety, but influencing perceptions and future legislation. But the reality is, it's about peoples behavior, not about sUAS (drones). Drones are simply the "newest thing" and that's just the way it is for now. How many tens or even hundreds of thousands of drones are out there already? We are always going to have incidents from time to time going forward because we, unfortunately, are always going to have a certain element of human nature.
In reality, RC aircraft have coexisted right along many manned runways for decades. I don't recall ever seeing a story about the risk to safety. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to have an RC aircraft hit me when I'm flying. But I don't want anyone taking pot shots at me with a rifle, or trying to blind me with a laser, or any other means people have to disrupt aircraft if they want to. But alas, it's now the drone that is the "newest, greatest threat". Out of the many thousands of units out there, how many proven incidents have we had? What is the percentage? I suspect it is incredibly small. We still have cockpit laser incidents but rarely does it get in the national news anymore.
My point is that although any real incident between an RC aircraft and a manned aircraft is serious business. The amount of media coverage and general reaction doesn't fit the actual risk in the long run, in my opinion. Should bad actors be found and held accountable? Of course. Do we need sharp shooters and signal jammers at all airports? I doubt it is an appropriate response.
As far as answers of what can be done to prevent the very, very few bad individuals from ruining peoples travel, or worse, using a drone? That is a great question. And I suspect the answer is; not much if the individual is determined. Remote ID, geofencing, Aeroscope devices; They are all well and good, but will really only effect those that really want to do the right thing anyway. For now, the media is going to do what it does. In 10 or 15 years, it is doubtful that if someone at a busy airport says they saw a drone off in the distance, travel will be cancelled for 2 days. But that's just my guess.
Incidents like Gatwick are serious with regard to not only safety, but influencing perceptions and future legislation. But the reality is, it's about peoples behavior, not about sUAS (drones). Drones are simply the "newest thing" and that's just the way it is for now. How many tens or even hundreds of thousands of drones are out there already? We are always going to have incidents from time to time going forward because we, unfortunately, are always going to have a certain element of human nature.
In reality, RC aircraft have coexisted right along many manned runways for decades. I don't recall ever seeing a story about the risk to safety. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to have an RC aircraft hit me when I'm flying. But I don't want anyone taking pot shots at me with a rifle, or trying to blind me with a laser, or any other means people have to disrupt aircraft if they want to. But alas, it's now the drone that is the "newest, greatest threat". Out of the many thousands of units out there, how many proven incidents have we had? What is the percentage? I suspect it is incredibly small. We still have cockpit laser incidents but rarely does it get in the national news anymore.
My point is that although any real incident between an RC aircraft and a manned aircraft is serious business. The amount of media coverage and general reaction doesn't fit the actual risk in the long run, in my opinion. Should bad actors be found and held accountable? Of course. Do we need sharp shooters and signal jammers at all airports? I doubt it is an appropriate response.
As far as answers of what can be done to prevent the very, very few bad individuals from ruining peoples travel, or worse, using a drone? That is a great question. And I suspect the answer is; not much if the individual is determined. Remote ID, geofencing, Aeroscope devices; They are all well and good, but will really only effect those that really want to do the right thing anyway. For now, the media is going to do what it does. In 10 or 15 years, it is doubtful that if someone at a busy airport says they saw a drone off in the distance, travel will be cancelled for 2 days. But that's just my guess.
New Posts
-
Sharing My Music and Sound Effects - Over 2000 Tracks- Latest: Eric Matyas
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.