Gatwick closed by drones
Discussion
DrDeAtH said:
Its all a massive red herring. It was a bomb scare..
In order to not worry the public, a drone was invented...
Plenty of bomb scares at Gatwick have been reported in the past, when they were redeveloping the South Terminal a few years ago they dug them up in a couple of places, without leading to mass panic. And people have phoned in hoaxes in the past as well, again, without huge panic (though not without disruption) In order to not worry the public, a drone was invented...
DrDeAtH said:
Its all a massive red herring. It was a bomb scare..
In order to not worry the public, a drone was invented...
I'm curious to discover what kind of bomb creates a need to keep all the potential victims within the danger area, not only that but to stop any of them leaving for 2 days and let the area fill up even more to increase the potential casualties?In order to not worry the public, a drone was invented...
Let's assume we give the witnesseses the benefit of the doubt here and that there was a drone flown by someone on the inside.
It makes a complete mockery of the draconian measures introduced after this ( hugely widened no fly zone, mandatory registration etc) as the insider knew perfectly well what the risks were and chose to ignore the law anyway. Meanwhile, innocent enthusiasts such as the couple who were wrongly arrested are punished with stricter controls which a baddie is just going to ignore anyway.
It makes a complete mockery of the draconian measures introduced after this ( hugely widened no fly zone, mandatory registration etc) as the insider knew perfectly well what the risks were and chose to ignore the law anyway. Meanwhile, innocent enthusiasts such as the couple who were wrongly arrested are punished with stricter controls which a baddie is just going to ignore anyway.
eltawater said:
Let's assume we give the witnesseses the benefit of the doubt here and that there was a drone flown by someone on the inside.
It makes a complete mockery of the draconian measures introduced after this ( hugely widened no fly zone, mandatory registration etc) as the insider knew perfectly well what the risks were and chose to ignore the law anyway. Meanwhile, innocent enthusiasts such as the couple who were wrongly arrested are punished with stricter controls which a baddie is just going to ignore anyway.
The regulations that have been imposed should have already been in place before the Gatwick incident. Drones are a massive issue for commercial and military aviation and the fact that it took the lengthy closure of our second busiest airport to get the government to act is pretty embarrassing for them.It makes a complete mockery of the draconian measures introduced after this ( hugely widened no fly zone, mandatory registration etc) as the insider knew perfectly well what the risks were and chose to ignore the law anyway. Meanwhile, innocent enthusiasts such as the couple who were wrongly arrested are punished with stricter controls which a baddie is just going to ignore anyway.
There are plenty of “innocent enthusiasts” doing stupid things with their toys. The argument that you don’t legislate something because the bad guys don’t play by the rules is frankly ridiculous, if that were the case we wouldn’t have any laws.
djc206 said:
The regulations that have been imposed should have already been in place before the Gatwick incident. Drones are a massive issue for commercial and military aviation and the fact that it took the lengthy closure of our second busiest airport to get the government to act is pretty embarrassing for them.
There are plenty of “innocent enthusiasts” doing stupid things with their toys. The argument that you don’t legislate something because the bad guys don’t play by the rules is frankly ridiculous, if that were the case we wouldn’t have any laws.
There is no point making laws tighter if they are just going to be ignored by the people who would have done so anyway, all you do is potentially criminalise normal people who pose no threat.There are plenty of “innocent enthusiasts” doing stupid things with their toys. The argument that you don’t legislate something because the bad guys don’t play by the rules is frankly ridiculous, if that were the case we wouldn’t have any laws.
By the letter of the new law, I cannot fly a drone 10 foot in the air over a small lake because the area I am in is within 5KM of a small airport. Any commercial or military aircraft in danger of colliding with that drone at 10 foot altitude will have already smacked into one of the many surrounding trees and telegraph poles. It's just daft.
eltawater said:
There is no point making laws tighter if they are just going to be ignored by the people who would have done so anyway, all you do is potentially criminalise normal people who pose no threat.
By the letter of the new law, I cannot fly a drone 10 foot in the air over a small lake because the area I am in is within 5KM of a small airport. Any commercial or military aircraft in danger of colliding with that drone at 10 foot altitude will have already smacked into one of the many surrounding trees and telegraph poles. It's just daft.
I can’t drive a car at 150mph on an empty motorway in perfect conditions. Why? Because a significant number of people have demonstrated that they aren’t capable of being trusted to use common sense. So we go for harsh measures that are intended to deter and where that fails if caught severely punished.By the letter of the new law, I cannot fly a drone 10 foot in the air over a small lake because the area I am in is within 5KM of a small airport. Any commercial or military aircraft in danger of colliding with that drone at 10 foot altitude will have already smacked into one of the many surrounding trees and telegraph poles. It's just daft.
That’s not quite the law btw. This website will help you find somewhere to fly https://dronesafe.uk/restrictions/
So just as an example this is Cambridge:
Here are several small lakes / ponds within the zone:
So setting aside the need to get permission from the landowners to fly and the need to keep away from built up areas etc, can you tell me what danger I am posing to air traffic from Cambridge Airport in this specific location at an altitude of 10 feet which requires me to contact air traffic control for permission? And why the surrounding trees are more of a hazard at this height?
Here are several small lakes / ponds within the zone:
So setting aside the need to get permission from the landowners to fly and the need to keep away from built up areas etc, can you tell me what danger I am posing to air traffic from Cambridge Airport in this specific location at an altitude of 10 feet which requires me to contact air traffic control for permission? And why the surrounding trees are more of a hazard at this height?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff