Flights diverted after Gatwick Airport 'drone sighting'

Three flights have been diverted after a possible drone sighting at Gatwick Airport.

EasyJet flights from Barcelona and Amsterdam were diverted to Stansted, as was a British Airways flight from Heraklion, Greece.

All three later landed at Gatwick more than 90 minutes after their scheduled arrival time.

Gatwick said it had investigated an "unconfirmed sighting of an object" outside its exclusion zone.

Flights diverted after Gatwick Airport 'drone sighting'

The so called drone was first reported by an Aer Lingus pilot. Only 3 flights were diverted and the airport remained fully operational.

The airport no longer has the Military anti-drone equipment set-up that can spot and disable drones. Reports are the equipment was removed in March.

Heathrow and Gatwick both are investing millions of pounds into their own systems that will prevent problems at the airports due to "drones".

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Would you by chance be willing to expound on what you think the situation is? I mean about the (“drones”). Maybe I’m wrong but I feel like you have some sort of opinion on the matter?

a reply to: S777S

I took the “ cue from the BBC title that says: 'drone sighting'. I also noticed Gatwick did not call it a drone but: "unconfirmed sighting of an object".

So I am not all that sure it was a drone, not sure what it was.

Anyone flying a drone around a airport needs to be busted and prosecuted fully. A airport is not the place to fly a drone and jeopardize peoples safety and time.

a reply to: LookingAtMars
Recent News reports showed one of the SRI LANKA terrorist Home after they raided such. Stacks of explosives etc. Plus a Drone. Maybe British & / or Global Intelligence know more then they are saying. Also a Large fire plus said explosions close to Heathrow Airport, that was shown on Video - taken by a Well controlled, no doubt Acceptable Drone camera operated by the Fire Brigade.

Which ever way it goes, better safe then sorry.

Imagine if roads and highways were shut down every time an rc car was spotted. Sure I guess someone could swerve and hit a tree. But odds are the rc car is not a threat to traffic. Are they over-reacting?

originally posted by: TheGreatWork
Imagine if roads and highways were shut down every time an rc car was spotted. Sure I guess someone could swerve and hit a tree. But odds are the rc car is not a threat to traffic. Are they over-reacting?

When you replace "car" with "thin metal tube with hundreds of passengers that relies on complicated high-precision turbines to hurtle along at 160pmh+", and "swerve and hit a tree" with "crash a thin metal tube with hundreds of passengers into a residential area filled with houses at 160mph+" then I'd say it's not that much of an overreaction.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

From your quote...

Gatwick said it had investigated an "unconfirmed sighting of an object" outside its exclusion zone.

I may be misunderstanding this but if the suspected drone was outside the exclusion zone then where's the beef?

I wonder if "drone" requires less paperwork than "UFO"?

There is a youtube channel called xjet.
He follows ALL the plane vs drone incidents throughout the world.
Plus all the new rules as a result of pilots claims.

Bottom line is there has never been a plane/helo brought down by a drone.
The only confirmed meeting was between a drone and helo.
The helo won and landed without any problems.

Several of the pilot claims have been proven false by the investigating bodies.

The UK government is proposing a 16.50BP registration fee per year for each drone.
But people with bad intentions are not going to register.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Why has this thread received 8 flags?

I'm surprised they diverted the flights, because I would think that the airports are in on the drones in their own area.

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: LookingAtMars

From your quote...

Gatwick said it had investigated an "unconfirmed sighting of an object" outside its exclusion zone.

I may be misunderstanding this but if the suspected drone was outside the exclusion zone then where's the beef?

I wonder if "drone" requires less paperwork than "UFO"?

I thought the same thing, an unconfirmed object outside the exclusion zone should not be a good reason to divert flights.

originally posted by: samkent
There is a youtube channel called xjet.
He follows ALL the plane vs drone incidents throughout the world.
Plus all the new rules as a result of pilots claims.

Bottom line is there has never been a plane/helo brought down by a drone.
The only confirmed meeting was between a drone and helo.
The helo won and landed without any problems.

Several of the pilot claims have been proven false by the investigating bodies.

The UK government is proposing a 16.50BP registration fee per year for each drone.
But people with bad intentions are not going to register.

If a bird can bring down a plane I am sure a drone can. Thanks for posting about xjet, I will have to check it out.

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Why has this thread received 8 flags?

Not sure, Maybe because people are still interested about the big drone scare there a little while ago and would like more information about what really happened. Some of the facts then were a bit odd. That's why I made the thread anyway.

I gave you a star if that helps

a reply to: samkent

Bottom line is there has never been a plane/helo brought down by a drone.

I guess they shouldn't worry until it does happen.