I'm sure that won't be a problem. Either limit the new runway to departures by quieter aircraft, or site the monitoring equipment somewhere you can get the required result. The test will be against 2019 levels, and Airbus NEO aircraft have increased in number since then.

 

 
BBC News - Gatwick Airport: Second runway backed by government - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjdz9q170yo

 

I certainly wouldn't try it in any of those former colonies where justice remains arbitrary, but we remain more tolerant over here, including of idiots. So I should be OK.

 

I have liked (and I know you jest) - but I urge caution.  36 hours could turn into 37 years.  Forgive this being a Facebook link ... https://www.facebook.com/AGTLiveTour/videos/1131819503856215/

 
A good day for justice. "Don't worry my friend, we'll sue them for what's rightfully mine. I mean yours." The legal costs would been a lot higher had it gone to court, but the compensation wouldn't have been. Maybe the police needed a few reminders? The alibi seemed a bit flimsy - "We don't own a drone and were both at work". I'm no Inspector Clouseau, but  reckon I could have confirmed or debunked that fairly quickly with resorting to any an early morning call with the Police Universal Doorkey.

Still, £55,000 for 36 hours work - could someone start a rumour about me flying drones near airports please?

 
I must admit when I read that on the BBC my first thought was what was the size of the legal bill. 

 
From the BBC


No they haven't received 200k - they've received 55k. The lawyers have received nearly three times that.

 

I have started a new thread with this post at http://www.passenger.chat/23418 - a far wider subject than just a single airline or single airport.   Thank you MVR S&T for bringing this one to our attention.

 

I've flown quite a lot with Virgin over the last 25 years, and also been to NZ and back twice (with some internals between the islands) with Air New Zealand, the second trip being RTW when they used to fly from London to Auckland both ways around (stopping at LA westbound and Hong Kong eastbound). Probably they had the best economy class of anyone at the time (late noughties), having sat in it for around 26 hours each way on those trips!

Sadly, ANZ were due to withdraw from the UK in October this year, but have brought that forward and stopped already due to the current situation. The reason they gave for the withdrawal originally was too much competition (from the likes of BA, Virgin, United) on the Heathrow to LA part of the journey. They had already stopped the eastbound route several years earlier, presumably due to competition from the MEB3 (Middle East Big 3) 

 
As much travelled that I am I have never flown with Virgin, my most air miles have been with Air New Zealand both International and Internal which was very pleasant and standards equitable to those of Virgin.

 

End of an era, indeed.  Flown on many Virgin Atlantic jumbos, destinations ... Miami, Orlando, Washington, Newark, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  Business, leisure, and very personal and family trips. Can't say I fancy any of those destinations in the foreseeable future, but for the absence of doubt, I can't foresee all that far ahead at present.  That's even though we have family in the USA.

 
A sad day for me as an avgeek (more to be honest than I am a railgeek), having flown more longhaul with Virgin than anyone else, and 80-90% of it on the 744's. I know from following the industry and the airline that they were due to go next year (replaced by A350-1000's that are currently being delivered), but to see it happening so suddenly was telling of the current crisis in commercial aviation.

Also telling was the move out of Gatwick, where it all started for them. The bad news just keeps coming for that airport, although I actually don't think BA will surrender it completely - especially, and ironically, now that all those leisure destinations in the Carribean and US have been vacated at that airport by their main competitor.

 
And retiring its last four engine jets too, with 7 747-400's stood down today and 4 A330's due to leave as scheduled in the next year.  Another sign that the airlines think this is going to have an effect well into the medium term.

 
From the BBC

 

Indeed so, never said otherwise, my point is that I think there is a chance the route may well not operate this Summer now.

Or maybe it will, now that Flybe are gone?

Truth is we don't know, and I must admit I wouldn't want to be in the route planning, or yield management dept of any airline at the moment.

 
Simon Calder touches some of the topics raised https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british-airways-gatwick-airport-heathrow-flights-staff-cuts-coronavirus-a9494266.html

 
The is also the long established and until Coronavirus quite frequent Railair (every 20 mins or half an hour depending on the time of day) coach service direct from Reading station to Terminal 5.
Very convenient even for those of us starting from Reading - almost as convenient as a taxi and ticket prices, especially with the Railcard discount, were very competitive.

 
When Flybe went under, we looked at switching to the BA Heathrow to Newquay (year 2020) flights.
Unfortunately, they didn't do a Sunday service (our return day); and their Friday evening from Newquay was too late for our use.
The timetable was on both the BA site and the Newquay airport site.
From the airport site -
..With the Heathrow Express, you can be in central London within 15 minutes – so that’s less time travelling and more time to enjoy yourself!

Beyond the excitement of the capital, London Heathrow truly is the door to the world, allowing you to connect to your next escape, all the way from Cornwall.

Five flights per week between July and September with British Airways.

BOOK NOW WITH BRITISH AIRWAYS
DISCOVER MORE ABOUT LONDON

From BA booking site with an August date Newquay to London
CHANGE SEARCH
FRI 31

£59

SAT 1

£75

SUN 2

£113

MON 3 AUG

£68

TUE 4

Unavailable

WED 5

Unavailable

THU 6

Unavailable

Prices are per adult, including all taxes, fees and carrier charges
BOOK WITH CONFIDENCE
We’ve introduced a flexible change policy for all new flight and holiday bookings.

20:15NQY
21:25LHR
British Airways British Airways
Non-stop1h 10mFLIGHT DETAILS

Economy
3 left from
£68

Business
£163
As we were going in early July. Flybe would have been ideal timings. BA were a no-go with their flight days/times, so it was going to train both ways.

Apologies, but they are/were (still) flying that route. 

 

This has not happened, to my recollection, for decades, if ever. The last LHR-NQY service I can remember was by Brymon Airways, and I think that ended in the 90's (it moved to LGW when they became part of BRA = BA Regional Airlines). There was a BA service due to start this Summer (July I think) but it seems unlikely that it will now.

There was a BA Summer service from LGW back in the mid-late 00's (memory fades as to the exact years). This used to compete with Ryanair from Stansted, who ran a service for many years.

 
We do have an ongoing climate emergency remember, hints of a wet summer, in the UK, with flooding perhaps.

If a journey accross water is required, use a cruise ship?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/52504850

 
Gatwick strikes me as easier to reach by train from the south, west (via direct train from Reading) and much of the north (via Thameslink) than Heathrow.

Heathrow is ... OK ... from Central London. From the West, you can double back at Paddington or struggle over a footbridge (or is there a lift in yet?) off a local train at Hayes and Harlington.   Come Crossrail it will be much better the with branches into Essex and Kent.

Which will be first - through opening of Crossrail or full recovery of air travel (assuming we want that latter rather tan more selective us with many UK and near Europe journeys by train).

 
I was thinking that it's easier to get to from London. From Bristol it's definitely easier to get to as there are direct coaches and trains (maybe not at the moment), no need to change in London with the inevitable journey between termini. But yeah, it clearly depends where you're starting from.

 
Our daughter lives in the Brighton area, and on occasions, flies down to Newquay from Gatwick.
Then Flybe moved to Heathrow.  Not convenient at all from the South Coast.
Flybe towards the early part of this year then said it was moving back to Gatwick, then collapsed.

There was a Flybe service from Stanstead to Newquay, but that's now gone.
BA also ran a service of sorts from Heathrow to Newquay.  We await to see what happens to that; and, of course, to Newquay and other provincial airports.

 
Not sure why Gatwick is more accessible for passengers.  If you're north of London, Luton and Stansted are better, south of the river it's obviously Gatwick.  I would think all will survive, but may put back any investment aimed at increasing passenger numbers by a few years.  Southend I suspect is in a more precarious situation though.

 

No, if anything they were slightly growing, especially long haul, which I think was up to 13 based 777's, flying mainly the "beach fleet" routes to Florida, the Carribean and Indian Ocean islands.


A few premium/high-yielding routes have been moved to/also operate from Heathrow. Gibraltar is one that springs to mind.


Their North Terminal routes were a legacy of their takeover of GB Airways, which operated as a BA franchise.

BA must think things are going to be bad if they are prepared to surrender Gatwick to Easyjet (who have around 60 aircraft based there).

However, some analysts are suggesting that what they might do is bring in Vueling (Spanish low-cost airline that's also part of IAG), who will have lots of excess capacity due to the collapse of Spain's holiday industry, to operate at Gatwick with a lower cost-model. Vueling did operate some Gatwick routes in their own right, including a very frequent (multiple-daily) service to Barcelona.

The whole thing about BA looking at closing Gatwick operations could also be a ploy by the airline to sort out long-running (I mean decades long) labour disputes within the airline, that mean for example you have different onboard crewing regimes (and vastly different pay scales), even within Heathrow operations, let alone Gatwick.

 
I wonder if this long term implications for the viability of other London airports, such as Stanstead or Luton? If flying only comes back at a very low level there may not be enough to keep those going, especially if airlines move to take up vacated slots at Gatwick as being more accessible for passengers? Though it must depend on the relative charges of these airports as well.

 
Hadn't BA been reducing services at Gatwick in recent years? Transferring some routes to Heathrow? They moved from the North terminal a few years back where they were the main (only?) tenant to the South whilst easyJet moved the other way. Up till that point easyJet had been operating mostly from the South terminal but I think they had a small number of North terminal routes.

 

It makes sense beyond safeguarding slots.

Forecasts suggests air traffic returning at a lower level.   With the Gatwick operation being about a fifth of the size of the Heathrow one, absorbing the traffic that was covered from Gatwick into Heathrow would reduce overheads from two operations into one. It would also improve BA flight connections through London - same airport connections where previously those connection in London were hamped by an airport change competitors in Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris do not suffer.

BEA started services from Gatwick in 1950 ... merged with BOAC into BA.   Could be the end of 70 years.    I wouldn't see all the other airlines leaving Gatwick though, but we could see further rationalisation from those who use multiple "London" airports.

 
I wonder whether BA is doing this to avoid losing valuable slots at Heathrow.  Presumably there will be a significant period when it will not need to use all it's normal capacity, which in normal circumstances it would lose. Whilst at the moment those rules are (I believe) suspended, I suspect that won't be the case in a couple of years, if other airlines want them.  And given they are as rare as hen's teeth, and are a valuable tradable commodity too, some foreign airlines might be willing to take up capacity to gain a foothold into LHR.

So by consolidating all its traffic into Heathrow, it minimises under-utilisation.

 
The news that BA might no longer use Gatwick, if I have understood it correctly, must have all sorts of ramifications for transport.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013
Presumably spare slots that could relieve the pressure on LHR.
Another reason to put off a decision on a third runway for LHR.
Does this remove the need for an increase in frequency on the North Downs line.
Reduction in Gatwick Express frequency, allowing paths for other use (if needed).

 
Could be a portal to Rendlesham Forest. 

 
It's starting to remind me of the Warminster "Thing"......................

 
I suspect that some of the initial reported sightings were real, but that the situation then degenerated into hysteria, with most subsequent reports being mistaken.
I also consider it possible that a large drone, or even a manned glider or microlight was flown at a permitted distance from the airport, and was mistaken for a smaller craft much nearer.

If the initial drone flights WERE a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, then those responsible are probably very impressed with the results.

 
hmmm. Video of interview with Police not withdrawn yet...

 

And that was a "miscommunication" by police. 67 individual reported sightings.

 

I think you mean *what* drone. Police saying it might not even exist as no footage, only human verbal reports with no details exist.

 

"Let's sue the buggers for what's rightfully mine! I mean yours."

Probably better to negotiate terms  for a story. Where's Max Clifford when you need him, eh?

 

I think if I were "Mr & Mrs Moron" I would be looking for a good no win-no fee lawyer at this point  .................

 
An anonymous tip-off phoned in by a local drone enthusiast, surely not?   

Paul

 
The usual trial-by-media too, unfortunately. Yesterday they were the 'Morons who ruined Christmas', today, innocent citizens. Who knows the truth? Certainly not me. I wish we could just let justice take its rather pedestrian course.

 
If the police DID confiscate the drone from the two former suspects, then this has presumably been returned as the former suspects are no longer suspects and have been released without charge.

Drones cost from under £100 up to many thousands of pounds, depending on size and sophistication.

 

Confiscated whose drone?

 

Have the police consficated the drone,I assume they are not cheap.

 

Telegraph online reporting they've been released without charge....were arrested on a tip off, rather than caught red-handed.

So quite possible they'll be back....

 

I suppose that is just possible, but I'm not sure why a deaf and blind couple would really want a drone.


Now that's what they call blue sky thinking! Send in your delay/repay form as now, but add a victim impact statement.

 
Finding the culprits is a step but uncovering the motive would be more interesting and useful.

 


Now there's an idea...………..a different scale of criminality altogether of course, but perhaps Messrs Hopwood et al could do the same after the next GWR meltdown?  I know, we could call it "Meet the Manager"! 

 
IF they are prosecuted and found wanting, could not those affected sue for loss of whatever? Idle musings perhaps.

 
As well as a custodial sentence, I think those prosecuted should get to meet some of their victims to hear their stories of holidays ruined, family occasions missed/cancelled, trying to get home for Christmas and what thousands of people have lost out financially as a result of what they’ve done.

 
I had to share this, sorry 

 


Why are these being flied so close to an airport, is it deliberate or pure accident,They not knowing the airport was there.

 
There's an interesting quote from Chris Woodroofe, Chief Operating Officer, Gatwick Airport, in the CAA press release announcing tightened drone laws in May 2018:


proving that it is one thing outlawing something, and quite another stopping it.

There is mention in that article about the penalties someone may face for "endangering the safety of an aircraft" - unlimited fine and / or 5 years in prison as a maximum. This bit of law was achieved by an amendment to the Air Navigation Order 2016, and so far as I can see was done by Statutory Instrument rather than primary legislation. So far as I can tell, there is no case law relating to deliberate interference with the operation of an airport, so this will be interesting on a number of fronts. If it comes to trial, that is.

 

OK, perhaps I was a bit harsh, maybe not shoot them..........

https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/20/grandma-says-gatwick-drone-pilot-hanged-punishment-8271307/?fbclid=IwAR3d5vV-H_uNtxuPsFXWd7vWGipSt0zMq0O2X8rYlpmmUvlZazrBNht0vS0

 
Interesting headline in The Times today

‘Grayling put drone law on hold before flight chaos’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/

 
How nice it is to see that the sprit Of goodwill towards all men has finally arrived in his thread
And while I'm here A Very Merry Christmas,and a Peaceful,prosperous ,and HappyNewyear to all.

 

Obvious solution - don't shoot the drone, shoot the operator. Bigger target, slower moving (less "nibble" too!) 🙂

 
Reported this morning that 2 arrests have been made, enquires continue.

The problem dealing with these types of drones is they are small and very nibble, attempts to shoot them with a rifle could lead to collateral damage cause by stray rounds also to get close enough to reliably hit the target the drone operator could see the marksman via the live feed from the drone; same would apply for net type devices.

The deterrent has to be arrests, prosecutions and a length custodial sentence.   Technological solutions can be overtaken by ………… technology also the drones could be adapted by the technically savvy to operate on different frequencies etc

 
In my earlier post I concentrated on the highest level of response that is needed against foreseeable threats, and rather ignored the lower levels that are also needed. In the current Gatwick incident, it appears that level one would have been enough, so its absence is rather striking.

These are the four main levels of response I can think of:

1. detect and track intrusive objects by radar.

2. monitor and locate radio emissions likely to be relevant

3. suppress radio communications used in operating the intruders

4. remove the intrusive objects from the protected airspace

With regard to (2), spotting the right signal is hard unless it stands out on some way from others. If it looks just like many innocent users of a radio band you may never find it, though there are still techniques that can be used even then. But without success at doing (2), you can't do (3), which is in any case hard to do without massive power (swamping legitimate users over a wide area) or knowing where the receiver is.

And as to (1), you can buy radars designed to detect birds at airports, though I've not heard of any British airport with one. Drones of specific types, or other threats that main ATC radars would miss, might call for different detection processing in the radar, but the task is certainly doable. Sensitivity is not as issue: radars have been used for over 20 years to detect insects, capable of tracking a 2 mg aphid at 1km range, and telling you its species and where it is going. And drones are a lot bigger than that, and have twirly bits on them - and that always makes a radar's job in detecting them easier.

So it is not unreasonable to expect airports to have equipped themselves with radars to detect anything suspicious in their immediate vicinity. Obviously to have that kind of capability available, you needed to start thinking about it a long time ago. But if this Gatwick event does turn out to be at the lower level of criminality, it may be a valuable alarm signal to the airports (as well "police" in the broad sense) to accelerate their digital extraction plans.

 

This will be a recurring issue, but probably not for long. You can bet your bottom rouble that if money has been the reason that there isn't a technology solution in the past, there will be a sudden loosening of the purse strings. There was some kit tested at Southend airport, that has led to a system being deployed at Guernsey prison to stop drones delivering drugs. That works with the smaller radio controlled stuff capable of lifting half a kilo or so, but how good it would be against the professional stuff being used here, I couldn't say. As for tracing the operators, just take a look at how big Gatwick is. It would take days to search everywhere that an operator could be. Triangulation of the radio signal could possibly be done, but apart from the possibility of something autonomous and pre-programmed being used, you could probably control one with commands issued via the mobile phone network. The RAF fly UAV's (posh name for big drones) in Afghanistan and Syria, with the controllers in Lincolnshire. I'd bet that a couple of clever sods with degrees in communications and computing could set up something rudimentary that would achieve some of the things we have seen in the past couple of days.

My money is on the environmental activist sector, but they usually brag about their stunts within the hour, and no-one has said a word yet. A foreign power could be behind it, just to show us that they can do it. A cartoon I have seen shows the Prime Minister at the controls, presumably to give the papers less room for Brexit.


Mine are in the loft.

 

This will be a recurring problem IMHO.
Even if the perpetrators had been caught, which AFAIK they have not, the drone flying was a great success from the point of view of those organising it.
Whatever the motive was, I foresee copycat efforts.

I also perceive significant risks of false alarms and consequent closures because someone THINKS that they have seen a drone.

 
I don't think it even need be controlled. It could be on a programmed flight path, with someone waiting at the landing zone to collect it and send it on its next programmed path.

 
I have great sympathy for travellers caught up in this.  There’s been fierce criticism from some of how Gatwick has handled it, but, as with when there’s a major railway meltdown, you simply can’t deal with everyone as you and they would like.  I’m sure many staff worked extra hours and others came in especially, but there is a limit to what your systems, processes and staff on the ground can deal with, though I’m sure lessons can be learned.

It was nice to see the railways, GNER especially, helping out with free travel to displaced passengers.  Let’s hope this now doesn’t become a regular occurrence at our airports.

 
Except it has just been closed again... (17:25 Friday) 

 

There is no debate - TV Licensing (Capita) have admitted that no one has ever been prosecuted on "detector" van evidence.  The reason is quite simple; TVL have never disclosed how these so-called detector vans and their equipment work. For TVL to use this equipment as prosecution Court evidence, full technical details of this equipment and how it is used must be made available to the defendant (as it is with speed cameras). This info has never been released, so detector van evidence is not admissible - if it even exists ! There is a second, perhaps more serious, reason, some legal minds have postulated that covertly "listening" to someone's TV is in the same legal category as telephone tapping - and even Capita can't do that !   

 
There is a good analysis of the technical issues in locating and disposing of the drone(s) here:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/20/gatwick_drone_non_shootdown_reasons/

 

It's open and we can drone on about flying (or not flying) again.   

 
And after all that!!!.☺

 
Yup - thanks! I've forgotten what I was going to post now... can't have been mission-critical 

 
Is this open again. Done from my phone.

 

I've heard several politicians saying that, and have almost got to the stage of shouting at the TV. Changing the rules - such as licensing, or the size of the exclusion zone - isn't the point; what went on yesterday was already against the existing rules. Changing the law, so as to allow physical intervention to remove an object from the wrong place, may be needed - I don't think there is any such power at the moment (but if they could yesterday they would have, and looked at the law afterwards). Enforcement, in the sense of the equipping the police (or whoever) with that kind of intervention capability, is what is really needed and lacking.

The drone need not transmit even if it is controlled from the ground, and autonomous operation with no controlling transmission (for a whole flight or just parts of it) isn't hard to do, though perhaps not with standard retail kit. And making one work on a different radio frequency isn't impossible either. Ultimately, you just have to go up and grab it (or convert it into an brick, aerodynamically speaking).

 
Where did you see that news? It isn't, & hasn't been seen all night. Oblique comments that they have done 'something' to prevent overflying (blocked their frequency?)

 
Is the drone the latest thing after cyber attacks?
Cause lots of chaos with not a lot of effort.

Does anyone know why suddenly some planes are able to take off and land yet before this morning they weren't and yet the same drone is up in the air still?

 
All we know for sure is that rules governing ownership/use are totally inadequate & this was easuily forecast. It wouldn't take many to bring total chaos to UK airports.

 
yep, or even (anti) Brexit campaigner(s)....frankly right now, it could be a teenage kid getting their kicks.

 
That was my and I expect most people's initial assumption. However, the Extinction Rebellion people have said it was not them, and they don't seem averse to disruption. No one else has claimed it. I wouldn't rule out a small group doing it just for the lulz, no big point.

 

That claim formed part of the debate I referred to, as did another that it was the aerial on the roof that gave you away...

 

It maybe that todays flat screen TV are different but with Cathode Tube TV's of the past it was the detection of the pulses emitted by the oscillators in the set that gave the TV away.

 

There's a very healthy online debate as to whether TV detection really exists; it doesn't seem to figure highly in evidence given in court cases.

 
BBC Radio 4 Today programme reporting Gatwick runway is open and a limited number of flights will be taking off and landing.

What gets me is that TV detector vans can detect which room in an unlicensed property a TV is operating and yet in this case the authorities can't scan the radio spectrum that these drones use and pin-point the location of the transmitting control unit.

Much more to it than I have mentioned I suspect.

Shoot it down with a, err, drone. 

 
As well reported in various media, Gatwick airport has been closed for over 24 hours due to illegal flying of drones near the runway.
The disruption is substantial and is likely to continue until Christmas, due to the backlog even if the airport reopens soon.
The armed forces have been called out to assist.

The motives of those behind this are unclear, the local police have stated that it is NOT terror related, but IS deliberate.

I suspect either anti-airport protesters or "deep green" protesters who are opposed to air travel.