False dichotomy. Surely the police should (and I imagine will) be persuing all possible lines of enquiry, whether "old fashioned" or modern and high tech.

Unless I am mistkaen a/c resuming in the last hour and half or so....as I saw them.. Must be to do with the success of

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...equipment.html

cheers

Terrorism?
I can see a dilemma for the authorities. If it is declared a terrorist incident the insurers will refuse to pay, and this incident above all has affected ordinary people - terribly, desperately. It's widely reported that this incident could lead to a 5 year sentence. I disagree. It most likely triggers Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with the definition of terrorism contained in Section 1. The perpetrators thus being eligible for 15 years. But it all hinges on whether the person(s) were doing it for some kind of cause - an eco group activity would certainly meet this criteria. I think Gov should continue attempts to negotiate with the insurance industry to pay, as I hear they were attempting today - but if the insurers refuse then Gov should call this incident out for what it most likely is - an act of terror.

It would be interesting to know who paid out for the disruption caused by the "Stansted 15". They have been convicted under Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 for "endangering an aerodrome" - potential sentence, life imprisonment.

That - and other measures that have been discussed here and elswhere to control the sale of 'drone batteries' are, unfortunately, a waste of time. The battery technology commonly employed in aerial drones is also commonly used in other, land-based applications. If, as suggested, this incident has been perpetrated by a person or persons with the technical knowledge to assemble or modify a drone without any geofencing or other limitations, then that person will likely have the technical expertise to buy a battery pack designed for an alternative application and adapt it for this use.

The problem with all of these proposals for licensing is that they affect the vast majority of users who wouldn't dream of breaking the law - but have no effect on those individuals with the intent and knowledge to carry out an attack of the sort we have seen at LGW.

Whilst it is tempting to blame Failing Grayling [as the Labour Party have done 21st Dec] for the local difficulty at Gatwick Airport, it is pointless to do so. Setting an exclusion zone of 100 km would make no difference. Regulations are pointless at preventing, only for prosecuting.

This problem was ALWAYS going to appear and the people who have shown themselves utterly unprepared are the Board of Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Chief Operating Officer Chris Woodroofe. What's the bet they will not be fired and still get their bonus?

H Peacock:

Aircraft windscreens and engines are tested against bird strikes, relatively soft and squishy things where impact is spread over a relatively wide area. The aircraft have NOT been tested against the small point loads perhaps encountered in hitting a drone, let alone a drone perhaps carrying a hard and dense payload.

It is utterly selfish of you to suggest that an airline should provide a USD300 million B777 or equivalent (and a full load of pax) to test how "tiny" the risk actually is. Bare minimum outcome: an aircraft out of service for months as Boeing or Airbus try to devise a repair scheme for a damaged windscreen frame or forward pressure bulkhead.

Better that muppets like you put up with a few hours disruption, unless of course you would like to stump up the money to indemnify the insurers, owners and passengers subjected to your "tiny' risk.

Similar muppets wanted the airlines to fly through Icelandic volcanic ash some years ago. Buy your own plane if you want to do any testing.

A conviction that will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, so not really a valid parallel, in fact not one at all.

Just as an aside, drones have been used extensively by ISIS to recon enemy positions, provide footage for their propaganda videos and to even drop anti-personnel grenades on unsuspecting troops.

This article by the Low institute -- https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...eld-extremists -- got me to thinking that the use of drones by anarchists and terrorists is going to escalate. Sadly, it's just a matter of time before a significant incident occurs at an airport or sporting stadium - so I hope that the various authorities are spurred on by this Gatwick nuisance to formulate proper plans to better monitor and mitigate these risks in the future.

From the Sussex Police:

Quote:

---

Around 10pm today we made 2 arrests in connection with criminal drone activity at Gatwick Airport. Proactive investigations are still on-going: we urge the public to contact us if they believe they have information that can aid us further.

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505

strange comment to make, expecting them to announce later a naughty 13 yo boy and girl have been let off with a warning.

I guess it is more of a reference to the standard "a 32 year old male and his 23 year old female accomplice" kind of reporting.

I used to own a drone, which I hasten to add I flew legally. It made me wonder whether it is not possible to triangulate the signal from the control unit?

I thought that used to be called sabotage. Let's keep the "terror" in terrorism.

Now being reported as a man and a woman.

Caught by nothing more hi-tech than an eyewitness, some guy spotted a drone(s) landing in a field with all its navigation lights on, hard to miss. And watched a guy in a high viz jacket pack it(them away) away and cycle off.
How clever was this guy not to remotely switch off the flashing nav lights, he might have got away with it.

"he people who have shown themselves utterly unprepared are the Board of Gatwick Airport Ltd. and Chief Operating Officer Chris Woodroofe"
Surely defence is not the responsibility of these civilians. I cannot believe the decision to close was theirs. They are unlikely to have access to security information needed to decide who might be responsible, and their aim.
The Government were unprepared - despite the large spending on defense. And I don't suggest the Opposition would have been different.
(Not and never have been an Aviation Industry person.)

None of the reports I've seen of the mysterious cyclist make any direct link between that sighting and the two arrests. Do you have additional information ?