Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

"Deliberate drone attack" shuts down Gatwick airport

alioth wrote:

If the person has never been in trouble with the police, then DNA matching to find the perp won’t even be possible (because the offender’s DNA fingerprint won’t be on record).

Friends of mine had children about a decade and a half ago. Home birth. They noticed the midwife taking a blood sample of the newborn. They first assumed it was for screening for sicknesses, the kind that are best treated early on. The father, ever the joker, told the midwife “now you are going to put my child’s DNA in some database, right”. He meant it as a joke, he didn’t for a single femtosecond think it could actually be true. He was quite shocked that the midwife answered seriously along the lines of “Yes, we do that with all newborns. But you can oppose and opt out.”

He did. The scene strongly suggested he would not have been given the occasion to opt out if he didn’t specifically ask.

It happened in the Netherlands (where I’m told home births are the norm, unless there is some particular increased risk). Not China.

Last Edited by lionel at 12 Jan 05:07
ELLX

Sweden has a research biobank with blood samples of everyone born in 1975 or after. Its use is regulated by a special law. It is possible both for parents and the individuals to opt out.

The biobank has been used for law enforcement purposes once, in connection with a high profile murder case — that of the very popular Swedish politician Anna Lindh in 2003. This caused a major controversy and there has been no attempt to use it in that way again. A temporary law made it possible to use the database to identify victims of the 2004 tsunami in Thailand.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I gave up watching Panorama a few years ago as it now complete tabloid rubbish these days with no attempt at any balanced reporting.

I did grit my teeth and watch this one and thought most of the authorities involved were deeply unimpressive. The question is, in the age of smart phones, why there is absolutely no footage apart from a few seconds of one tiny blob which could be anything. The Police put up their own drones so it’s likely there was no drone and the reports were of the Police ones.

I think I mentioned that I was in the circuit a while ago and ATC asked me to look out for a drone close to the end of the runway reported by a member of public. I couldn’t see anything and ATC told me they often get loads of unreliable reports, for example a tiny one in somebody’s garden at an altitude of 30 feet flying miles away. We all kept flying on that day in Class D airspace which I think was the correct response.

I don’t think Gatwick handled it at all well but the Gatwick head of ops said he “wouldn’t do anything different”. If he was working for me, I’d sack him for saying that sort of thing.

United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Maybe there was no drone?

Now there’s spooky…..Brexit anyone??? Sorry, Peter, I promised never to use the word again.

Archer-181 wrote:

I don’t think Gatwick handled it at all well but the Gatwick head of ops said he “wouldn’t do anything different”. If he was working for me, I’d sack him for saying that sort of thing.

Ditto, but then that is what runs Corporate Britain….

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

I don’t think the govt could have organised this to distract from the main news topic. About as likely as faking the moon landings (too many people would know, for a start).

I reckon the airport has an operating rule that any drone report → close airport. If the CAA served you that, you have no choice. But the airport manager can’t admit that; he has to cultivate a working relationship with the CAA and the DfT. It is normal for an airliner crew to blame “ATC” for any delay; that is good for passenger relations because they don’t blame the airline, but in this case he could not have pulled that one. I am very sure that they re-opened exactly only when they got a signoff, prob99 at minister level.

As regards sightings, many years ago I read various books about UFOs and the 1950s mass hysteria cases (mostly in the US). It does happen… Some of these were very hard to dismiss, however.

That said, if this was one lone individual, with a brain and good electronics and building expertise, he could have easily pulled it off. The trick is to not use off the shelf electronics (the airport had kit to monitor DJI drone comms, which covers 99% of the “got a drone for xmas, let’s fly it over Gatwick” crowd) but that isn’t rocket science, and keeping one step ahead of the police – in any country – isn’t rocket science either… The system mostly works because most criminals are dumb / have big egos. Then you have to know when to quit, and resist temptation to p1ss them off just one more time.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I gave up watching Panorama a few years ago as it now complete tabloid rubbish these days with no attempt at any balanced reporting.

I must say this is the poorest piece of journalism I have seen in some time. I cant see the point making a one hour programme in which everything worthwhile saying, could have been said in ten minutes – and I am being generous.

In terms of whether or not there was as much drone activity as reported – I have a very open mind – but it is strange that of the alledged 100+ Gatwick staff who saw the drone, not a single one was prepared or able to come forward for the programme. Either they werent asked, or told not to, I cant think of any other conclusion.

I do think from experience when people are told to be on the look out for something a lot or people will say they have seen that something – when they have not.

Panorama is mostly crap these days, but so is most TV journalism. As you say, the value of the narrative is minimal. And banal CGI is cheap. With a radio programme they can’t get away with that

NATS (and related, e.g. CAA) staff is banned from media (including social media) participation. Some still do it though; one improbably junior CAA employee in the FCL department had a scandalous FB page which didn’t do him much good given that he also said he works in the CAA licensing department. Didn’t last long… Some CAA staff post on UK sites under pseudonyms; not great since two of them (who particularly like to beat people up on forums) are in charge of the initial decision whether to prosecute! ATCOs all sign the Official Secrets Act and don’t talk until they are too old to care, or have retired, sometimes doing FISO work at some grass field. No way would any Gatwick staff be allowed to talk to the media; like most tightly organised big firms these days, these organisations are fiercely political from top to bottom and you will just get fired or, if lucky, will have any promotion chances trashed. Or moved to Heathrow, which I am told works almost as well, with the added benefit that they can’t sue for unfair dismissal

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Another thing…………….why did no plane spotters get a photo? They sit at the end of the runways with huge lenses and would have been monitoring the Ground on scanners.

For example, my plane rolled out after 5 months with a new paint job at a small Aerodrome and within 3 minutes had been photographed before we could even get to the fuel pumps. Also when I returned to my home airfield it was photographed with a long lens about 20 times (by one camera with a long lens) the first photo was just over the Airport perimeter fence and all of the way down the runway. Those guys always get new planes and would certainly get a drone.

I agree with the drone Pilots interviewed. I doubt there was a drone at all.

United Kingdom

It was always at night, no?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top