I suggest it would be meet and right to take a more pragmatic view of this until we have a lot more information than we have at this moment in time.
One remembers when the Telegraph reported the news - not simple conjecture like the tabloids.

How sophisticated a drone are we talking about? Drones have an "Inertial Measurement Unit" which is what they use to stabilize themselves. If you have one of the bigger aerial work drones which are modular and programmable, you could probably fly the thing without a GPS signal or make it execute a "return to base" mission when signal loss occurs. Also there are proper inertial navigation modules now available for drone use, and last I heard someone is also now offering Visual Inertial Odometry in a drone.

Proper inertial navigation is hard to do, particularly on a lightweight platform such as a drone. The location or distance calculated by such a system is produced by integrating speed and acceleration over time, each signal having a significant noise component that needs to be filtered out. The net result is that the errors in the system gradually build over time, leading to steady state error. This is why any inertial platform needs periodically aligned.

Modern drones, like the DJI, use optical flow and visual odometry to determine position alongside GPS. Inertial navigation isn't used as such, the accelerometer and gyro sensors being used for the stability control. For optical flow, cameras capture images of the surrounding environment and motion within that image is estimated to detect global and individual motion vectors that can be used to calculate motion and cues about depth of field.

Yes im a wee bit sceptical as to why they have not been charged YET as well.

Seemed very odd for the boss where the guy works to suggest he was with him whilst the offences took place , something the BBC are now reporting as well.

No they won't. Any civilised delayed passenger is going to be getting on with their lives once they get to where they want to be, and that won't be searching Crawley for the "scrotes" that delayed them, unless of course you know of a anti drone group who plan to leave the safety of their keyboards and get the "scrotes." (Sarcasm firmly on)

Not sure if there is a PPRuNe embargo on the names of the arrested couple but Heavy.com has a good summary of their online presence and initial coverage in the UK media.

The Daily Mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6523821/Did-drone-reviews-Facebook-prompt-police-swoop-big-kid-former-soldier.html?ito=video_player_click has some interesting content, from his boss who gives him an alibi to the hi-vis "bicycle man" who was seen appearing to be packing up a drone.

Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615

Any lawyers on here?

When they get the right people and they are found guilty would airlines/airport/passengers be able to file a civil case for damages/loss of earnings and so on?

looks like the 2 middle aged couple arrested by the Police will have a nice payoff for wrongful arrest. There was no more evidence than "he flies drones and lives nearby" with a cast iron alibi by a boss and 2 co-workers.

G

In some circumstances you can be "unarrested", but I'm not sure if that applies after the time they have been held

Beeb reports a damaged drone recovered near LGW. That has got to be stuffed with clues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oilyturbineguy (Post 10342763)

Well, I hope all those newspapers that published the couple's details and pictures get heavily fined

---

In the U.S. a security guard named Richard Jewell was identified by name in the news media as a prime suspect in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. He subsequently was cleared and had some success with libel lawsuits against CNN and other outlets. The Jewell case has arguably made the American media a little more cautious about reporting on active criminal investigations in the two decades since.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

In many countries , there is the presumption of innocence and confidentiality of the investigation . Is that not the case in the UK ?
It it is the case then the person from either the police or the justice department that released the names and addresses to the journalists should face strong disciplinary action .
I fell very sorry for this couple, remember all too well when a similar cock-up ended in tragedy when a journalist released the name (and the village where he lived) of the air traffic controller working the aircraft during the Ueberlingen collision.
The father of one of the victims showed up in his house and stabbed him to death in front of his wife and kids. I always wondered how the person that leaked his name and the editor that published it still feel about it today ?

BBC News;
Presumably after the last "sighting"?

The reporting was that the Crawley couple were "detained on suspicion of disrupting services of civil aviation aerodrome to endanger or likely to endanger safety of operations or persons". Not sure what piece of legislation this is pulled from.

I believe the police can, and routinely do, arrest people to further their investigations. Being arrested doesn't automatically mean a charge. So you have a sort of exchange that may go "We would like to interview you at the police station regarding this event". "I don't want to go to the police station"... "Then you are under arrest.... the purpose of your arrest is to enable us to continue our investigation" etc. Sadly, although an arrest doesn't imply any guilt etc, society thrives on "no smoke without fire".
Also, the way the law stands in the UK, anonymity/confidentiality is not a right although this is usually applied in very sensitive cases such as those involving children etc. where identifying a suspect may indirectly lead to identifying the victim.
The alternative to naming persons who have been arrested could lead something like the situation that used to exist in countries like Argentina and Chile with the "disappeareds".

DCSI Jason Wigly (sp) , just interviewed by the BBC happened to mention " that there is also a possibility that there were no drones " ?????
edited to say he appeared a bimbling idiot