Gatwick Drone 'Attack'

[This posting has been removed]

Probably because they don't instill terror in the population.

Being miffed at the inconvenience of disrupted Christmas plans is not the same thing as fearing for your life. I guess that makes the drone pilots mifferists. No 72 virgins awaiting them in heaven.

Edited By Hopper on 21/12/2018 09:18:15

Edited By Hopper on 21/12/2018 09:21:47

Working in education I reckon it is a disgruntled teacher - If they can't go away until Friday night why should their pupils skive off on Wednesday and fly away to somewhere warm!

Not that I am bitter - and I don't live near Gatwick either!

As I understand it the problem could have been dealt with earlier.. as soon as the relevant H&S assessment forms had been filled in but then there was the issue of environmental impact studies and speculationas to the exact nature and make up of the vehicle. That was when someone suggested the pilot was a direct descendant of one of the orignal tribes of Gatwick whereupon a whole new study regarding cultural insensitivity had to be convened. This was abandoned for a major investigation after it was alleged that someone had mouthed that the pilot was stupid and they felt it necessary to determine the actual and identified gender of said pilot. All waiting passengers are being interrogated in case any of them have used harsh words during this 'time of crisis' 'new class of threat' 'unpredictable incident' .
The truth is out there... the increase in traffic via Le Shuttle as a result of Gatwick stalling points directly to M Macron trying to recover costs towards Yellow Vest damage in Paris.

A possibility that some fruit loops have done it, but wouldn't they be more likely to be targeting Heathrow and its third runway?

Neil (Chartered Environmentalist - Chartered Engineers moan about all the other folk claiming to be 'engineers' so I am going to moan about being lumped with eco-morons!)

Wait until you get hit with a drone control levy ! Do you honestly think the government is going to pay for it !

How many weeks before kneejerk legislation is passed and drones are banned from sale and all owners have to hand them in for destruction? As usual the innocent will suffer and the criminals will carry on. Hurry up and get your winter scene drone photos and get the last drone race event in before it’s too late. Drones have a multitude of valuable uses and it would be a shame to stifle innovative opportunities because of a few malicious idiots.

Mike

I am interested in the 'why' rather than a bit of disruption. We have had radio control planes and helicopters I the hands of teenagers for donkeys years with no known incidents of this nature - I don't think.

I think the question is why people would wish to bother causing this kind of disruption - along with damage to 999 vehicles. Why are people doing it?

Phil H

Well, you still remember those incidents and the associated names all these years later, so it has impinged on your consciousness to some extent. I doubt most people -- other than those actually left waiting at the airport -- will remember the Gatwick drones in six months' time.

As for reasons why this is being done. Well I could imagine it's something as simple as a disgruntled person who had no alternative but to pay exorbitant parking fees there, doing it to 'level things out a bit'.

Martin.

Drone(s) not shot down because of the risk of a stray bullet, we learn. Who ever does these 'risk assessments' and then allows armed police with (presumably loaded) weapons to roam around the very crowded concourse just a few hundred yards away?

Mike

I would assume that armed police in the building would have a specific target which in most cases would stop the bullet, firing at a moving target is not so easy,even if you hit the drone the bullet would still have some force behind it and it would then randomly fall with the possibility of hitting something else.

Martin P

I would assume that armed police in the building would have a specific target which in most cases would stop the bullet, firing at a moving target is not so easy, even if you hit the drone the bullet would still have some force behind it and it would then randomly fall with the possibility of hitting something else.

Martin P

Edited By martin perman on 21/12/2018 12:41:41

Yeah, these double standards make me laugh too. Like how wearing a seatbelt is law, except on a bus/tram, in which case the laws of physics don't apply, for some reason or another.

Martin.

Edited By blowlamp on 21/12/2018 12:48:15

Using firearms in an Airport doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. If shooting down a drone ever was to be considered an appropriate response I’d be far happier for the Army to do it rather than the police.

Hitting it with a shotgun would eliminate the possibility of stray shot, when I was a teenager and earned money grouse beating we used to get rained on by pellets fired by novice shooters until the gamekeepers took their guns away. Air resistance slows the pellets down fairly quickly as long as you are firing upwards and not straight at someone

While waiting to meet my son at gatwick a lady conducting a survey on armed police patrolling the airport public areas asked my opinion on the high profile armed patrols. Though I support them being there I feel it is a sad reflection of the way things are going. Having travelled Europe all my life encountering armed police is not unusual and not a problem, might be different in the USA though. The young may not realise that roaming pre Shengan europe was no more difficult than showing your UK passport and being waved on your way.

Mike

In response to Vic, shooting at a drone with the object of bringing it down is an almost impossible task with a rifle. Basic squaddies would not have the skill to hit it if it was not moving and they were within 200 metres, bearing in mind that it is likely to be 500 metres away at least, a specialist Army sniper might stand a chance as would a specialist Police sniper. As far as weapons being carried in Terminal buildings, if it ain't loaded it is just a sophisticated stick, you can hear it "hang on mate, stop shooting while I load my gun" really!

That's the whole point of doing Risk Assessments. They take a bad situation and attempt to reduce the impact of an incident by planning ahead. Usually this works better than a bunch of confused ignoramuses milling about in an emergency.

At airports there's a possibility that terrorists might shoot randomly into the crowd or try and place explosives. I hope we all agree it would be better to mitigate that possibility than trust to luck when it happens!

There are many potential counter-measures, one of which is to complicate the terrorists problem by having a number of armed policemen patrolling the building. Like as not that's sufficient to put them off unless very determined. The counter-measure follows the principle of least harm, that is the risk posed to the public is reduced by armed policemen.

However having armed policemen is also risky - in a firefight he might miss and hit a bystander. That too has been subjected to a Risk Assessment. In consequence, airport policemen are equipped with bullet resistant vests and a carbine-like weapon that is far easier to aim than a pistol and can be brought into action faster. It fires a bullet designed not to pass through the human body. I don't know if it's the same bullet that used to be issued to US Air Marshals when hi-jacking was popular. An ordinary looking bullet with a thin shell containing a number of smallish shot that disintegrated on impact. It was designed to incapacitate people while being incapable of puncturing the aircraft. A Risk Assessment suggested that a special bullet would reduce the chance of crashing the aircraft as a side-effect.

Nothing about a Risk Assessment guarantees absolute safety, nor are they intended to. They don't stop people doing anything, rather they require operators to THINK before they act.

Only guessing of course, but I suspect chaps on the forum who dislike Risk Assessments have never had to deal with the consequences of an accident. It's a horrible and expensive process. You don't just send the widow a corsage and ask the nearest apprentice to have another go...

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 21/12/2018 15:00:04

The bullets used in weapons at airports, as far as I am aware is a standard 9mm. The risk assessment regarding hitting innocent bystanders is taken by the officer at the time, before a shot is fired. All authorised firearms officers are trained fully in this respect.