Gatwick closed by drones
Discussion
schmalex said:
I think the Israelis use barrage jamming techniques (basically, their EW kit does what it says on the tin - jams absolutely everything in a given area) to inhibit all sorts of different frequencies.
That’s not the way our forces tend to operate
But surely jamming only works if it's been controlled, if it's flying a pre programmed course it would take something like an EMP to stop it?That’s not the way our forces tend to operate
Biker 1 said:
Having been caught up in this nonsense in December, I am not best pleased that there's still no definitive answers as to exactly what happened, that there's seemingly no photographic/video evidence & nobody held responsible. The Panorama show last night told us almost nothing new.
Quoting the above post, how come airports such as Tel Aviv have not experienced this sort of disruption? I would've thought that hamas etc would have attempted this on multiple occasions....
I feel the same - I'd just like a bit of closure on it, and know what/who it was that right royally cocked up my travel plans.Quoting the above post, how come airports such as Tel Aviv have not experienced this sort of disruption? I would've thought that hamas etc would have attempted this on multiple occasions....
PRTVR said:
schmalex said:
I think the Israelis use barrage jamming techniques (basically, their EW kit does what it says on the tin - jams absolutely everything in a given area) to inhibit all sorts of different frequencies.
That’s not the way our forces tend to operate
But surely jamming only works if it's been controlled, if it's flying a pre programmed course it would take something like an EMP to stop it?That’s not the way our forces tend to operate
There are circumstances where nets are used to entangle an errant drone, but they are very specific and are only used in very small areas.
10 minutes in to the BBC panorama proggy and im thinking where's the phone footage then?
All credit to the bbc when they questioned the whole credibility of what was going on together with some drone owners who have
knowledge of the technology.
Health and safety boy from gatwick kept insisting its all true though.
At the end of the day you keep your job by doing what he did.
All credit to the bbc when they questioned the whole credibility of what was going on together with some drone owners who have
knowledge of the technology.
Health and safety boy from gatwick kept insisting its all true though.
At the end of the day you keep your job by doing what he did.
Fundoreen said:
10 minutes in to the BBC panorama proggy and im thinking where's the phone footage then?
All credit to the bbc when they questioned the whole credibility of what was going on together with some drone owners who have
knowledge of the technology.
Health and safety boy from gatwick kept insisting its all true though.
At the end of the day you keep your job by doing what he did.
Did the programme give any indications as to why the couple were arrested?All credit to the bbc when they questioned the whole credibility of what was going on together with some drone owners who have
knowledge of the technology.
Health and safety boy from gatwick kept insisting its all true though.
At the end of the day you keep your job by doing what he did.
Tuna said:
You are stretching (or simply don't know) the facts here. The existing airspace rules were quite sufficient to prevent drone strikes. Extending the NFZs doesn't make it "more safe", it simply stretches the area ATC has to cover beyond all reasonable measure. Take a look at the NFZ for Cambridge on the previous page - it prohibits flying of drones in an entire city and the largest three recreational parks nearby. Compare that with the separation rules for aircraft around Cambridge airport and you'll see the ridiculous disparity in what is being asked of ATC, the CAA and their enforcement.
It looks suspiciously like it's exactly the same size as the ATZ plus a little bit on the end of the runway centre lines.So they're now not allowed to fly where they shouldn't be allowed to fly plus a little bit of most likely to encounter an aircraft sort of space and this is some sort of terrible hardship?
Tuna said:
You are stretching (or simply don't know) the facts here. The existing airspace rules were quite sufficient to prevent drone strikes. Extending the NFZs doesn't make it "more safe", it simply stretches the area ATC has to cover beyond all reasonable measure. Take a look at the NFZ for Cambridge on the previous page - it prohibits flying of drones in an entire city and the largest three recreational parks nearby. Compare that with the separation rules for aircraft around Cambridge airport and you'll see the ridiculous disparity in what is being asked of ATC, the CAA and their enforcement.
It's notable that two groups are more than happy to look down on drone use - aircraft pilots are more than happy to play up the dangers of drone strikes, and the model aircraft group are disappointingly unwilling to include drone flying in their special club. Both saw the huge rise in drone use as a threat to their business. Both have actively tried to marginalise drone pilots who are often committing serious time and expense to their skills and qualifications.
Everyone is just concerned that the free for all situation that was allowed to exist for too long has created a very dangerous current situation. The massive increase in drone sightings within controlled airspace or close proximity to aerodromes is of huge concern to those who work in the industry. Where aviation is concerned things tend to get addressed in a severe manner because of the potential consequences of them going wrong. In time hopefully a better system will be developed and licensed drone users will be welcomed into the fold.It's notable that two groups are more than happy to look down on drone use - aircraft pilots are more than happy to play up the dangers of drone strikes, and the model aircraft group are disappointingly unwilling to include drone flying in their special club. Both saw the huge rise in drone use as a threat to their business. Both have actively tried to marginalise drone pilots who are often committing serious time and expense to their skills and qualifications.
I’m not stretching the facts. I’ve been sat at work having to avoid a piece of airspace or hold traffic out and deal with the knock on effects including enormously costly diversions because of people flying their drones inside controlled airspace never mind close to small aerodromes. It is quite likely that you and a lot of the rest of the public are not aware of quite how much this is going on and quite how severe and expensive the impacts are.
It’s not a no fly zone it’s a FRZ. You can fly with permission. I didn’t have cause to check the NOTAMS for SC today but a couple of days ago they had UA activity within the ATZ.
djc206 said:
Tuna said:
You are stretching (or simply don't know) the facts here. The existing airspace rules were quite sufficient to prevent drone strikes. Extending the NFZs doesn't make it "more safe", it simply stretches the area ATC has to cover beyond all reasonable measure. Take a look at the NFZ for Cambridge on the previous page - it prohibits flying of drones in an entire city and the largest three recreational parks nearby. Compare that with the separation rules for aircraft around Cambridge airport and you'll see the ridiculous disparity in what is being asked of ATC, the CAA and their enforcement.
It's notable that two groups are more than happy to look down on drone use - aircraft pilots are more than happy to play up the dangers of drone strikes, and the model aircraft group are disappointingly unwilling to include drone flying in their special club. Both saw the huge rise in drone use as a threat to their business. Both have actively tried to marginalise drone pilots who are often committing serious time and expense to their skills and qualifications.
Everyone is just concerned that the free for all situation that was allowed to exist for too long has created a very dangerous current situation. The massive increase in drone sightings within controlled airspace or close proximity to aerodromes is of huge concern to those who work in the industry. Where aviation is concerned things tend to get addressed in a severe manner because of the potential consequences of them going wrong. In time hopefully a better system will be developed and licensed drone users will be welcomed into the fold.It's notable that two groups are more than happy to look down on drone use - aircraft pilots are more than happy to play up the dangers of drone strikes, and the model aircraft group are disappointingly unwilling to include drone flying in their special club. Both saw the huge rise in drone use as a threat to their business. Both have actively tried to marginalise drone pilots who are often committing serious time and expense to their skills and qualifications.
I’m not stretching the facts. I’ve been sat at work having to avoid a piece of airspace or hold traffic out and deal with the knock on effects including enormously costly diversions because of people flying their drones inside controlled airspace never mind close to small aerodromes. It is quite likely that you and a lot of the rest of the public are not aware of quite how much this is going on and quite how severe and expensive the impacts are.
It’s not a no fly zone it’s a FRZ. You can fly with permission. I didn’t have cause to check the NOTAMS for SC today but a couple of days ago they had UA activity within the ATZ.
andrewrob said:
Don't you mean possible sightings of drones? Like this one for example which was front page news until the smaller follow up article https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dr...
Pilots are human they will make mistakes.You don’t believe people have flown drones inside controlled airspace in close proximity to aircraft?
djc206 said:
andrewrob said:
Don't you mean possible sightings of drones? Like this one for example which was front page news until the smaller follow up article https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dr...
Pilots are human they will make mistakes.You don’t believe people have flown drones inside controlled airspace in close proximity to aircraft?
El stovey said:
What was the mistake made? Some politician guessed that it could have been a bag which is clearly nonsense.
Time to be honest I only bothered to read the title as I was on my way out. I apologise. I do believe pilots will have been mistaken on the odd occasion though, it’s inevitable.Thankyou4calling said:
I would but I’d need better evidence than this rubbish
A pilot thought they saw a drone on final approach into Gatwick and reported it. How is that rubbish? It’s a suspected sighting, nothing more, nothing less.There have been dozens of drone sightings near major airfields and within controlled airspace. It is simply impossible that all of these reports are wrong.
djc206 said:
A pilot thought they saw a drone on final approach into Gatwick and reported it. How is that rubbish? It’s a suspected sighting, nothing more, nothing less.
There have been dozens of drone sightings near major airfields and within controlled airspace. It is simply impossible that all of these reports are wrong.
Impossible?There have been dozens of drone sightings near major airfields and within controlled airspace. It is simply impossible that all of these reports are wrong.
Have any been proved correct ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff