Bizzarely, the policeman in charge of the Gatwick investigation is now saying that no videos of the drone exist.
Well, this is quite possible, since most of the reported activity was in darkness, and phone videos of a distant moving object are usually useless.
Peter wrote:
Bizzarely, the policeman in charge of the Gatwick investigation is now saying that no videos of the drone exist.Well, this is quite possible, since most of the reported activity was in darkness, and phone videos of a distant moving object are usually useless.
So what do we see in the video linked in your post 22? It sure looks like a drone to me — you can make out the cross shape.
Well, as the operator of the busiest airport in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbrightshire, I’m hugely reassured that the English judiciary is stamping hard on aviation enthusiasts and their sundry perversions.
Thirty six hours deprivation of freedom and state-sponsored hamesucken hardly seems sufficient punishment for alleged possession of an RC aircraft within 50 miles of a Control Zone. But police and magistrates in the Home Counties should not ignore the threat posed by flight simulators, the use of which has changed a city skyline. We know of at least one such device being operated not 15 minutes flight distant from Gatwick. Should we report it?
But seriously, who sought and who granted the warrant to arrest these poor people, and on what pretext? Have the English authorities subcontracted these functions to colleagues in Pyongyang?
Excellent post 
Airborne_Again wrote:
So what do we see in the video linked in your post 22?
That, dear boy, is the epitome of a UFO 
UFOs have disapeared long time ago after numeric HD video come to life….
They get published in low resolution after passing trough the mass media compression, if you ask me what post 22 shows? a flying elephant will be more accurate ;)
Why do so many posts on so many formats claim so aggressively about the rules and legislation regarding Drones an RC aircraft?
No one with any malicious intent gives one Carp about the rules.
The same applies to everything we do in every walk of life.
You can’t ban everything. There’s always two sides to an argument and Human nature mostly polarizes opinion to what mostly suits your own bubble.
Fully agree. Flying a drone around an airport is illegal already, anyway.
Two thoughts:
1) I sincerely hope this couple sue the living daylights out of the various media outlets and the police and get enough money so they can retire. Utterly disgusting, the way they were treated.
2) I cannot help but wonder if there isn’t more to this whole saga than meets the eye and/or has been reported. I mean, you don’t shut a major airport down because of ‘lights reflected off a crane’ (yes really, some copper said that). Something’s really, really fishy about the whole incident.
172driver wrote:
Utterly disgusting, the way they were treated.
I agree. Disgusting “Trial by Press” without any base. Giving away the names of those held at this stage is a blunder (or possible felony if it has been leaked intentionally) which MUST not happen in a civilized country. And to the media anyone is guilty until proven innocent, which is not really new however.
172driver wrote:
Something’s really, really fishy about the whole incident.
Yes I would say there is a good chance that there was a lot more to this incident than what has yet been published. This may well be out of consideration for the investigation or also to discourage copycats, it’s hard to copy what you don’t know.
