Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
← Back to Squawk list
  • 51

London Gatwick Shut by `Deliberate' Drone Raid Amid Holiday Rush

Enviado há
 
London’s Gatwick airport is closed to aircraft following multiple sightings of illegal drones, disrupting flights for as many as 115,000 people on one of the busiest travel days of the year. Lines of passengers circled Gatwick’s two terminals Thursday and hundreds hunkered down on departure-hall floors, with the airport saying at 11:30 a.m. that it could give no indication of when it might reopen. Police said the incursions were clearly deliberate though most likely not terror related. (www.bloomberg.com) Mais...

Daniel Baker
SuperstarÁsEscolha do mêsLança-tendênciasPaparazziJet SetterEscolha da semanaViciado em NotíciasMáximoAjudanteEntusiastaAmigo de confiançaLista de HonraEscolha do diaComandanteExploradorFeeder ADS-BCríticoGuru do SetorGroupieSocialiteDiretoFotógrafo amadorPromotorAltruístaIluminadoAnuncianteAutobiógrafo

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


southgeek
stacey go 21
“We believe this to be a deliberate act to disrupt the airport,” Gatwick police commander Superintendent Justin Burtenshaw said in a statement. “However, there are absolutely no indications to suggest this is terror related.”
RPV’s deliberately flown over the airport (not just somewhere in the flight path by mistake), and disrupting operations is not a frat prank. Just because no one was killed or shouted something in Arabic, doesn’t mean it isn’t terrorism. Deliberate disruption to flight ops is pretty bad. The fact that they were helpless to do anything about it speaks volumes and will be noted by those perpetrating this stunt and I’m certain this was merely one, of many tests to come.
Are we going to have to jam the frequencies these things operate on around airfield perimeters? Will it even help?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
malki2601
Malcolm Dousha 5
One drawback with jamming frequencies is that this could disrupt the commercial aircraft using the airport as well. There would have to be an instrument that can home in on the frequency of the drone without affecting the legal users within the airport perimeter.
Can anybody design such an instrument that can home in and jam the frequency of the drone and maybe even take over control of it...? The military may already have such equipment or something similar.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
racerxx
racerxx 2
What commercial aircraft though? The airport was basically shut down.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
crchall
Chuck Chall 2
Most of the drones of that type are GPS directed. They're not using any frequency that could be disrupted without disrupting all GPS related information in the area. They are pre-programmed, launched, perform their "mission" and return to wherever they are told without any radio communication.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ed7778
Dennis Stockton 2
I've read that trained birds work fairly well. The Tower has plenty of ravens. Time they earned their keep.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
danoriginie
Dan Sherrerd 5
Hard to believe they don't use the technology available to "shoot down" drones. i.e. dronsheild.com

Don't forget the UK has fallen. Critical comments against islam will get you jail time.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
richardorgill
Richard Orgill 13
My neighbor has two daughters who lounge next to the pool. One of the idiot drone types up the street used to fly his drone over their yard, at the time it was assumed he was taking photos...later proven true. Larry got a hose blaster attached to his garden hose...down came the drone.

Cops showed up questioned Larry told the drone operator nothing we can do. The drone was never found.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Dl8698
David Loh 8
What the Fxxx has it got to do with islam?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mikeenderle
Michael Enderle 5
Yes sir. UK is circling the pipes. I'm not sure enough people see it that way to save their country though. If the yellow jackets had an effect in France, perhaps UK could find the spirit of resistance also.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mariofer
mariofer 3
There are hundreds of drone detection and interdiction technologies out there. Don't know in the UK, but in the US, you can only use detection. By law, you cannot interdict or interfere in any way with the drone. Congress has passed some regulations allowing certain entities to use abatement, but the scope is incredibly limited. I am afraid that until something really bad happens and hundreds of lives are lost, nothing significant will be done about this problem.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont 6
Don't believe it for a minute, If a drone is intruding on a property the average American will take care of the problem, regulations or not.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SootBox
SootBox 1
Paint ball guns on full auto work amazingly well.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
devsfan
ken young -2
Incorrect. Unless expressly written into a deed of ownership, an owner of real property has rights to the sky above and the earth below.
Also, an intruding privately owned aircraft and other objects are assumed to have an adverse effect to "the complete and full enjoyment" of one's property.
Consequences are the property owner has a right to defend his right to that enjoyment.
If what you claim is true, then the rights of drove users usurp ALL property rights.
That said, in order for your claim to be true, you'll have to prove it.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Surely you can think of a less confrontational way of stringing your words together?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt -1
So, Mayo One flying a mission to pick up a heart attack victim goes over your property at 500 feet, you feel you have the right to shoot it down?

ABC 7 News is filming a funeral procession of a fallen police officer flying at 1,000 feet, do you feel you have the right to shoot it down as well because it went over your property?

If I fly at 150 feet to photograph the fall harvest from a public right of way, you also feel that because I can capture your property in that photograph, you can shoot my equipment down? It is black letter law that my First Amendment rights prevail, I don't care if it from a street corner, from a bucket truck, or from 150 feet in the air.

But, by all means, get out your guns and shoot up the place.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
cannonfodder
Darrell Collins 4
Hi! I want to fly my model airplanes without unnecessary drama or hand-cuffs. Please don't confuse the issue.

You have the same right to fly over public property as you have to drive over it - both subject to regulation and access control. Hovering over someone else's property is a different story, as is hovering beside someone else's property.

I guess your reference to the 1st Amendment is freedom of the press. It is not freedom to surveil.

And before you start to puff up, just because something is technically legal now, doesn't mean that it will remain so. And waving it about has the potential to galvanize the folks who make the rules to fix that for you.

Replace your drone with a camera tower and think through how this will play out. If you are taking a couple snapshots and moving along, the people will be with you. If you are recording an event for someone, the people will be with you. But if you are just out "exercising your rights" to video tape anything within eyesight, but brought a camera-tower to do it, then the folks might be with the guy who asks you to move along and if you don't, sympathetic to his taking a rock to it.

Even legitimate news paparazzi aren't generally seen in a positive light.

So, please do not by any means use weak excuses to cover bad behavior and encourage antagonistic interactions that while technically wrong will feel right to most folk. They might just make it the law and impact those of us who are minding our behavior.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 2
First off, the protections that allow for Freedom of expression are also covered in the first Amendment not just Freedom of the Press.

Now then, public property. Access to public property is usually unabridged except for obvious dangers and events which would inhibit public safety. But generally, it is fair game whether it be in Times Square, or East Park, Mason City. (see Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia)

I accept the restrictions where there is a general expectation of privacy, because my work is not voyeuristic in nature. However, there are times where I have a legitimate reason for “hovering” be it timing of climate, or waiting on a flock of vultures, ad nausium. I do the same with my tripod and Nikon.

I am no apologist for those who behave in an illegitimate manner, and that was not my intent at all.

However, when I read time and again those who would shoot on sight any drone, you can understand my concerns. Why should I be penalized for the miscreant actions of others? Yet, people did paint with that broad brush.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
cannonfodder
Darrell Collins 1
I understand those concerns, and most of those examples fall well within the "reasonable man" approach. My caution is that "expression/privacy"* argument tracked for as long as everything was manned and/or obvious. But autonomous drones who can pop up 400' are a potential game changer.

Technology has the potential to change a lot of laws.

So previously, if you wanted privacy from public areas, you could plant trees, put up a fence line, a curtain, or the like. Now someone pops up over any of that and claims that's his/her "right" to operate from public lands and his/her "right" to video anything they can see from the drone.




*I wasn't tracking that "expression" was the argument against privacy, but that doesn't change much.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 1
I don't think anyone is allowed to own guns there - not even the police. The military would be the only entity there capable of shooting anything down ...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 2
Incorrect. Many people are allowed to own and use guns, but getting the required permits and where you can shoot is more strictly controlled. The police can be armed although the normal bobby on the street is unlikely to be armed. Merry Christmas
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 1
And that product is at www.droneshield.com, not what you wrote.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont -7
No kidding, don't you dare say anything about the Islamic owners of the UK, they didn't even buy the UK, they were allowed to steal it. The English "Bulldog" lost its teeth about the time it joined the EU.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
devsfan
ken young 4
Not that this drone thing is a result of an influx of Muslims into the UK...
But, I once saw and interview of a radical Muslim Cleric living in the UK say the following.
"We will use your freedoms to bury you"....Meaning the UK
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
duane270
Duane Osman 7
How long before a 'device' is attached to one of them?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
lynx318
lynx318 7
Time for high power laser interception, same as being tested for missiles.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
padrooga23
stacey gordon 5
Deliberate but terrorism? Then what is it? Fraternity prank? Boys will be boys...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
padrooga23
stacey gordon 3
"but NOT" terrorism.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
canuck44
canuck44 4
So now the police have busted two "ecoterrorists" they think might be responsible. If so, a well publicized 20 year sentence with a lifetime supply of sand infused lubricant would be appropriate if hanging is off the table.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
spbking
Stuart Fountain 7
Why did airport/police wait over 16 hours to call in military support. Statements from PM etc. ing hollow to travellers
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
riccolcor
Richard Cornish 6
Exactly!!!!! "Caught with our pants down" comes to mind
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
spbking
Stuart Fountain 3
ring hollow
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MikeinKyiv
Mike Lynn 7
I keep hoping one of these clowns who do these stunts will really suffer the consequences. A clear message - like a 10 year prison sentence might encourage miscreants to think twice about "droning" a major airport. What happened at Gatwick is just not acceptable. And the idea previously mentioned of tying a "device" (iPhone, etc.) to a drone is a marvelous idea.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
mariofer
mariofer 4
I am afraid not much will be done in terms of chasing these drone operators down and shooting these things out of the sky until something really bad happens and one of these drones brings down an aircraft and innocent lives are lost.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
f4fntm
john doe 0
I don't think the discussion regards whether or not to act against drones. The question is, how?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 4
As is evidenced by the number of murders, the threat of consequence doesn't deter the crime.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
Bill Babis 3
Not enough consequences in most cases.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
spbking
Stuart Fountain 2
About the sae number a year in the UK as in Chicago over a weekend
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Difference being: Chicago is 1 city, the UK is 4 countries
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 3
Ironically, Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the Nation, too.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont 2
10 years?????? what in the world is ten years compared with the possible death of hundreds of people? The law is a gutless joke, if the stupidity has to be stopped then get serious about the penalty!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
f4fntm
john doe 1
Uh, I think Mike was just throwing out a number, Jeff. If you have another suggestion, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
spbking
Stuart Fountain 12
Police "afraid"to shoot down drones - welcome news for all terrorists!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
firstmagus
Steve Holland 3
Problem with shooting them down are the misses. Bullets go up and have to come down somewhere
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
Bill Babis 7
12 gauge with droneshot. Pretty harmless as it comes down. Devastating to the drone.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 2
Bullets being fired into the air, and then killing someone as they fall, is a myth that was debunked many years ago. In fact, Mythbusters did an episode on this very thing once, and busted the myth with testing.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
If you noticed at the end of that particular show, they did interview a doctor who did state that falling bullets do kill people. A 4 year old boy was killed by one during church services in Decatur GA in 2010. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/year-old-killed-celebratory-bullet/G3Kmeb2mX4RGW28fTW4RjK/
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 2
I'm not buying the story. I don't see how anything that amounts to a pebble being dropped from, say 5k feet is going to kill anyone. I'm sure it would hurt like hell, but doubtful it would penetrate the skull.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Low probability isn't no probability. For example:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-falling-bullet-death-st-0710-20170709-story.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/15/firing-a-gun-into-the-air-can-kill-someone/#25b92e3d22e0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5912041/

Many people did not buy that the RMS Titannic could sink- it was unsinkable.
Your belief is a popular one, just not quite correct

Iss Scheiße, zehn Milliarden Fliegen können sich nicht irren
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 1
If we believed everything in today's media, we'd be in serious trouble ...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
There are too many reports of such on a yearly basis. While I enjoyed the Mythbusters immensely, some of the stuff seemed to be a stretch. That episode only showed or tested a bullet going straight up, not being fired at an angle less than 90 degrees. Once you raise a weapon over 0 degrees, which is something rifleman are taught in an indirect way, impact zones are farther away. Simple ballistics.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 0
How about some science? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5912041/ has more details into why. Have you ever seen what a bullet looks like? Do you understand ballistics as well? A weapon does not have to be fired straight up into the air for a bullet to fall down. The axiom of what goes up, must come down is very true, no matter which angle a weapon is fired.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 1
The police aren't even allowed to carry firearms in the UK. I hear they are reversing this, however.

Gee, I wonder why?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 2
Incorrect. Although I doubt you have ventured from these shores you can easily find pictures of armed police particularly at major airports.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 6
Equipping drones with low power transponders that broadcast a signal that can be picked up by ATC within the 5 mile limit (at least in the US) would be beneficial to airports so they can be tracked easier. It would make locating both the dron and operator easier.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
crchall
Chuck Chall 2
Most drones are built by the owners from readily available parts. Motors, props, available anywhere. 3D print a frame. Buy or breadboard your own electronics. You could only mandate manufacturers to add transponders.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont 6
The penalty "as much as five years in jail" How about 105 years in jail? How about mandatory registration of every drone manufactured and sold?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han 5
Banning all drones in 3...2...1...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
crchall
Chuck Chall 2
Never happen. Most of them are home built. Many use cell phones for GPS, mapping. Are you going to ban all cell phones, too?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 3
Never say never, Chuck. There are those actively trying to ban something today that is a Constitutional right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights ...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
shenghaohan
Shenghao Han 1
Someone need to build a drone interceptor...
EG, a bigger drone with a net to catch the smaller intruder.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
garritt
garritt 4
cheaper to hire a expert drone racer to crash/intercept another drone into the offender
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
timothywilcox402
Tim Wilcox 9
I'm pretty sure I could hit one with my 12 gauge shotgun. Anybody want to hire me? Should solve that problem pretty quick.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
kenoraeagle
DAVID MCKIE 15
Took one out 2 years ago with a 12 guage,full choke #4 shot. It sort of just fell apart. We were hunting in a marsh adjacent to an airport. It had been over the runway and tarmac. The Airport Manager thanked us,as they had closed the facility twice due to this hunk of junk.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
#4 Birdshot or buckshot?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
panam1971
panam1971 2
Wouldn't be much different than bird hunting.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 0
Except there won't be any pain, blood or death.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mohenley
Mark Henley 0
After seeing the pattern of your posts, I've decided that you're the one that posted the newspaper ad that chided hunters for not going to the grocery store to get their meat, where no animals were harmed....
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Back to detective school for you !
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lettini
Lois Lettini 2
YES!!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 2
Two people have been arrested as part of the ongoing investigation.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/21/uk/gatwick-airport-drone-arrests-gbr/index.html
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
rarebear14
Dolf Brouwers 5
Shooting it down was considered too dangerous....how in hell did the RAF win the battle of Britain ?
We are at war you stupid Politicians...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Dolf, RAF were shooting at a bloody lot of much bigger targets.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JimG4170L
Jim Goldfuss 4
How big do you think these drones are? Shoot them down with what? The smallest munition a typical fighter has would be about 6"-8" long - where do you think that round winds up if they miss the drone (which is perhaps 24" x 24")?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
hpren19
Henry Prentiss 1
Laser?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rarebear14
Dolf Brouwers -2
a hunting rifle will easily shoot down a drone, or an army sniper with a Barret
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
malki2601
Malcolm Dousha 3
These drones are a major threat to airport ops and an absolute pest. Should be 10 years imprisonment for the morons responsible... because of their blatant and stupid irresponsibility. Tim Wilcox has the right idea. If you're good with a shotgun, you would be very useful.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 3
No, it is not the drones, it is the Operators. Incidents like this give those of us who operate within the law and regulations a bad name.

And as for shooting drones down, I would not recommend it in certain areas. I operate on public property, and private when I get express consent from the land owner. Period! Anyone destroys my personal property, will face criminal charges (at least in Iowa and Illinois). In addition, in certain municipalities, you cannot discharge a firearm, that also is a criminal charge.

The solution is to somehow, enforce the laws and regulations in place. And I am all for equipping drones with transponders so they can be identified, and criminal acts can be traced.

Do not lump us all within one basket.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ba151
Bruce Atkinson 2
If “operators” cannot police themselves, the people (gov) will do it for them. As usual, it takes only a few to ruin it for all. Unfortunately, it will not happen until blood and guts are part of the story.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
Thank you Ken for being a conscientious drone operator. Enforcing the laws all ready in place would solve many of today’s problems.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont -9
This is the same stupid argument as "it's not the guns, it's the user" Ban the drones, we don't need them. If you want to keep them then allow drivers to drink and drive, give everyone the right to own an unregistered gun
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 5
I beg to differ. If used within the law and FAA regulations, a drone is just as useful a tool as the Nikon FM2 was. It has opened up a whole new aspect of photography that I could not attain from the ground.

And for the record, my equipment is registered with the FAA. It keeps a flight log to show what I have done, where, and when. That technology has already been used to defend my actions as a photographer.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dnorthern
dnorthern 3
Clueless commentsshould be banned as well.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 2
Jeffery Beaumont - Congratulations. One of the DUMBEST comments I have ever read on the internet. Your logic is exactly what will bring America to her knees.

Ever hear of the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? When you break the law, you're supposed to be punished. At least that's how things used to be ... as my state releases criminals convicted of gun violations, yet wants to restrict MY right to bear.

Kenneth's opening sentence is right on the money. Drone's don't fly themselves, cars don't drive themselves, and guns don't magically jump off a table and randomly take people out.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
stephenjshaner
s s 2
So we should ban alcohol?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Bobqat
Bob Harrington 5
There oughta be a law against doing stuff that's against the law!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jdrpc
Joao Ponces 3
What in the hell happened to the Royal Air Force? Is their mission NOT to defend the UK airspace and avoid disruption to common people's lives? This stupidity of the politically correct already killed Britain, and it's doing the same to the whole of Europe. Time to stop and think!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
JimG4170L
Jim Goldfuss 4
Just curious, how big do you think these drones are? I could see having a policeman come out and try to shot it down with his gun/rifle (if it were safe to do so) but the RAF and their aircraft are going to be able to do little, unless they accidentally ran into it (chances of spotting it at the speeds they fly would be low), ingested it into their engine, lost the engine, and then crashed into the residential community below....good plan. but i definitely agree with your last statement - Stop and Think
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont -2
You are correct, killed it and then buried it!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
cvs62
F Minook 1
Congress needs to limit the power of the drones just like they did for personal walkie talkies. The power of the drone transmitters allowed are too high and should be limited for personal use drones. The range of drones should be line of sight and limited range. The FCC can not do anything until Congress enacts laws to limit the range. Any modification to boost the range would be illegal and should have heavy fines and jail time. A special license would be required for the higher powered drones and would be required to transmit signals that ID the drone and location information at all times. As a matter of fact, all drones should be required to transmit an ID signal and location information.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
norybmot
Tom Byron 1
Why not hire snipers equipped with lasers to disable these dangerous drones. Shut down airport—disable drone—clean up debris—reopen airport.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ba151
Bruce Atkinson 2
Why should people have to pay for disposing of these? Get rid of drones above 50 feet.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Cansojr
Cansojr 1
How do you have propose to enforce and police your 50' rule. Is that ASL or AGL. Not really feasible.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 1
The FAA considers drones (actually sUAVs) to be aircraft. Same as a C150 or B737. In the US interfering with an aircraft is also against the law. A shotgun may not be that effective against a drone flying at altitude. In any case the drone just has to fly higher. Since the operator is already flying in a restricted area, I don't think he's that concerned with flying below the drone altitude limit. Depending on the shot used, a shotgun is only effective to about 200ft (usually a lot less).
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
It doesn’t necessarily have to be used against the drone. Used against the operator solves the problem also and sends a significant message to future operators. Considering the lives being threatened, it would be justifiable.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Cansojr
Cansojr 1
A radar guided gatling gun would solve this problem. Borrow a couple of sea-whizz electric guns from the navy, problem solved. Only one problem, where does the lead fall off target?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Dl8698
David Loh 1
Why did they close the airport? If i remember correctly many people Here have openly declared drones are harmless to aircraft. After all no aircraft has crashed due to drones. YET!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
JimG4170L
Jim Goldfuss 3
When you see pictures of the damage drones can do to aircraft and engines you may rethink this statement, as well as the knowledge of those who say so.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
firstmagus
Steve Holland 1
sarcasm
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Dl8698
David Loh 1
Haha thanks. I thought i had sarcasm dripping all over my post!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ba151
Bruce Atkinson 1
Aeromexico #AM770 from Guadalajara suffered nose cone/radome damage on approach to Tijuana. Local media reporting it collided with a drone. Check Twitter @TomPodolec for pics
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
There's some question about that. Last I heard,no drone pieces were found. Has that changed?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Not that I have heard. But they also haven’t found any feathers or blood, so the damage is unlikely to have been caused by a bird. That doesn’t leave many alternatives.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
randyeveret
randy everett 1
"....In a bid to ease the backlog of flights, the Department for Transport temporarily lifted a ban on night operations at other U.K. airports...."

What's up with that? Why are they not flying to other airports in the U.K. at night?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 4
Flight curfews are somewhat common, even in the US.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
randyeveret
randy everett 1
Really? When...where in the U.S are flight curfews "common"?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
Here is one. http://www.nycaviation.com/2014/05/the-laguardia-curfew-why-you-ended-up-at-jfk/29665
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont 1
Rubbish!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
garritt
garritt 0
I would rather have 'them' error on the side of safety
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sethrb13
Seth Blankley 1
I really dislike the idea of more laws. Why do people have to do stupid shit? 🤦‍♀️
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ed7778
Dennis Stockton 1
A few of Her Majesty's lout subjects having a few laughs.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
A bad guy with a drone is best defeated by a good guy with a 12 gauge.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ba151
Bruce Atkinson 3
And what is the effective range (altitude) of a 12 gauge?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jeffbeaumont
Jeffrey Beaumont -1
Absolutely.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dnorthern
dnorthern 1
Common sense drone laws would prevent this type of thing from happening. Oh, wait ...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
stephenjshaner
s s 1
There's an easy solution to this problem. Like in the old days when trains had cow catchers attached on the locomotive (I believe the proper term is a pilot), we could simply attach big steel plows on the front of aircraft to harmlessly push aside these poor, wayward drones.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
Airlines would likely protest the extra weight. Additionally, that might only work if the drone cooperated and came at the plane head-on.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MH370
MH370 -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Gatwick Airport chaos as drones causes ALL flights to be suspended

All flights at Gatwick Airport have been suspended due to two suspected drone near a runway.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1061471/gatwick-airport-flights-suspended-chaos-police-updates
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ba151
Bruce Atkinson 0
I saw this coming when drones were introduced. I’m surprised it’s taken this long. These things should be outlawed BEFORE the cause a crash.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
a1brainiac
a1brainiac 0
This problem is set to increase exponentially at all airports in the very near future...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
Geldridge
Gary Eldridge -1
This is all hype by the news media. There is more danger from bird strikes than any possible drone strike. It's just not a big deal.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
Mikehartner06
Mike Hartner -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Gatwick Airport is SHUT DOWN as drone sightings force ALL flights in and out to be suspended

Flights at London’s Gatwick Airport, the UK’s second-busiest airport, have remained suspended as authorities investigate reports of two drones flying over its airfield, inconveniencing passengers days before the Christmas holiday period.

http://www.aviationrepublic.com/gatwick-airport-is-shut-down-as-drone-sightings-force-all-flights-in-and-out-to-be-suspended/
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report

Entrar

Forgot password?
Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Registre-se na FlightAware