Gatwick Airport: Drone sightings cause delays

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Assemble

Airport camera systems are generally set up to watch the ramp and taxiways, with only a few looking up at something that might be flying nearby. And a lot of those cameras are old and cheap.

The drones were sighted flying directly over the perimeter fence, and directly over the runway

www.nytimes.com...

The fact that Gatwick is one of the most heavily surveilled strips of land in England, combined with an absence of video of any drone, left the lead investigator, Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley, questioning whether drones were in fact involved at all.

I have to agree, there is no obvious excuse for a lack of footage.

Former Scotland Yard detective, continued from the NY times article,

He also said he did not understand how there could be over 60 witness statements but no video to back up the claims, especially in the age of smartphones.

Agreed.

Live updates:

news.sky.com...

Police were in a "cat and mouse" hunt for drone operator

Military equipment was used in the hunt for the perpetrator, but their identity remains a mystery.

"Each time we believe we get close to the operator, the drone disappears," police said at the time

Footage of airport drone with a police helicopter in pursuit

metro.co.uk...

Police helicopter cameras are not just old, poor quality cameras.

If there is a sighting, what normally happens, is the police helicopter zooms in on the subject (usually people, cars, but this time it's a drone), and then they keep watching it until it reaches it's destination. How a police helicopter couldn't view a drone sighting on it's camera, and follow the drone back to it's owner (as the best drones can only stay airborne for 35 minutes), makes no sense to me.

I think this is why the drones were being described as 'modified', because they were not having to land after about half an hour.

Unless there's something more concrete than skepticism, it seems fair to me to conclude that the lack of decent photography needs to be better explained for me. Of course it is possible it's just one big mess after another, but that still seems a little far fetched for me at the moment.

a reply to: Assemble

It was above the taxiway, which the airport cameras aren't set to watch. They're looking down at the taxiway watching for incidents between aircraft or aircraft and vehicles, etc. They're not looking above them. So the only really good camera would be from the police helicopter.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Assemble

It was above the taxiway, which the airport cameras aren't set to watch. They're looking down at the taxiway watching for incidents between aircraft or aircraft and vehicles, etc. They're not looking above them. So the only really good camera would be from the police helicopter.

What would be your explanation for the police equipment not being able to photograph it?

Given the quote from sky news, it's not just a police helicopter, but military equipment as well.

Police were in a "cat and mouse" hunt for drone operator

Military equipment was used in the hunt for the perpetrator, but their identity remains a mystery.

"Each time we believe we get close to the operator, the drone disappears," police said at the time

news.sky.com...

originally posted by: Assemble

Footage of airport drone with a police helicopter in pursuit

metro.co.uk...

There is no helicopter in that footage taken from North Gatwick Bus Terminal.

a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

maybe there was no drone thats why you cant locate footage.

The Gatwick attack was most likely organised by certain security services, in order to increase the sales of 'drone dome' systems throughout the UK and beyond.
Drone detection systems may be deployed at all UK airports - Daily Mail
The UK's security minister Ben Wallace says:
'I can say that we are able to now deploy detection systems throughout the UK to combat this threat.'

and guess who sells the uk this stuff.
aanirfan.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

maybe there was no drone thats why you cant locate footage.

The Gatwick attack was most likely organised by certain security services, in order to increase the sales of 'drone dome' systems throughout the UK and beyond.
Drone detection systems may be deployed at all UK airports - Daily Mail
The UK's security minister Ben Wallace says:
'I can say that we are able to now deploy detection systems throughout the UK to combat this threat.'

and guess who sells the uk this stuff.
aanirfan.blogspot.com...

Do you mean to say that they had some sort of advanced tech drone, which could stay in the air longer than any other drone, and that as soon as the police got close to locating the operator via their helicopter, that they had the technology to cloak the drone, to make it disappear?

Or do you think there are a bunch of people from different walks of life and different professions who're in a conspiracy in order to increase some companies sales?

a reply to: username74

elbitsystems.com...

a reply to: Assemble

"Police were in a "cat and mouse" hunt for drone operator
Military equipment was used in the hunt for the perpetrator, but their identity remains a mystery.
"Each time we believe we get close to the operator, the drone disappears," police said at the time"

this, i think is nonsense.
visual control link to an operator can be detected, and located/severed.
to fly alone it needs to have detection/nav equipment or/and in flight computer for preplanned/autonomous flight.

also we are assessing info in relation to the propaganda assault from the f.c.o.
fortunately they are not very good at it, lol.
this looks like one of theirs.
grayzoneproject.com... -war/
www.ukcolumn.org...

a reply to: username74

The link is 1st November. The drone(s) happened 19th December.

So for the Gatwick drone incident to be about a company making money, we'd need 60+ credible sightings, not just by the public, but professional people, including the police, to be wrong. We have the police/military saying that when they think they're about to locate the pilot, the drone just disappears, so that would be stealth technology. And a drone which stays airborne longer than any other drone (hence it was labelled 'industrial').

It sounds like the technology to do that is far more advanced than the technology they're selling. I don't think it's a credible line of thought, but you never know.

a reply to: Assemble


"So for the Gatwick drone incident to be about a company making money, we'd need 60+ credible sightings, not just by the public, but professional people, including the police, to be wrong."

can you affirm these sightings and witnesses are genuine?
an act of faith is not sufficient.
there could have been a drone.
wouldnt invalidate my case.

a reply to: username74

www.bbc.co.uk...

During a conference call between ministers, chaired by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, it was agreed the 67 drone sightings were legitimate.

The reason why there was a previous announcement that there may not be a drone(s) was because of the lack of footage,

Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley had cast doubt over possible drone sightings as police had not been able to acquire any footage.

Asked about this, he said: "We are working with human beings saying they have seen something."

If we're going to doubt absolutely everything we read, and what people say, just to stick to a theory that 'they' made it up, so that a company could sell more products, then perhaps all we've got left is to wear our tin hats and hopefully not even have to leave the house.

a reply to: Assemble

i would be better off trusting you than chris grayling.

can you link me to some footage of the gatwick drones?

"If we're going to doubt absolutely everything we read, and what people say"
a good start!

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Assemble

i would be better off trusting you than chris grayling.

can you link me to some footage of the gatwick drones?

"If we're going to doubt absolutely everything we read, and what people say"
a good start!

Dude, I just quoted Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley saying that he initially considered that there may not have been a drone, due to the lack of footage. That's part of the mystery here.

a reply to: Assemble

so you joined onto this site a few days ago.
probably you were lurking before so you know the score.
don't lose heart in little people.
humans are belief based creatures. perception is reality for us.
but our perceptions are shaped by what we believe.
what we are told and what we think we see.
life is a dream essentially, but this is key because hope lives within the dream.
hope that things will improve, for you, for your kids.
do not believe what others tell you. confirm, if you can.
hope this journey doesn't blackpill you too hard,
make no mistake there is a war for your mind.
human psychology is all thats left to strip mine in this world.
choose wisely.

a reply to: slippeddisc

There was a close up posted on news site of the drone from underneath.
That was the photo I used to determine the make and model.

a reply to: username74

tingley said "We are working with human beings saying they have seen something."
thats not great.
in fact its a downright weird thing to say.

a reply to: Macenroe82

can we determine the veracity of the photo?
i.e. time, place taken?

a reply to: Macenroe82

this?
store.dji.com...

In the end there was NO drone at all....ooops!

It was determined to be the lights from a nearby crane...

Gotta blame those drones now......

www.google.com... d=chrome&ie=UTF-8