Gatwick airport closed due drone reported in area

[Ron Dobson]

This is simply untrue.

As I've said above, I know that at least 10 different police officers (five on Wednesday night and five during Thursday), airport security staff, a captain/pilot of an airplane waiting to take off, and other airport professionals all reported a drone or drones over the airfield. (And there will be others that I don't know about.) Yes, there were also sightings reported by passengers and the general public arriving/departing Gatwick - as would surely be expected - but this doesn't exactly add up to "the whole episode was primarily based on public sights".

This is intriguing, African Wildlife. How do you know all these people have reported sightings? Do you work at the airport or for the police? If you know all this then you should tell someone in authority, like Jason Tingley for instance.
Oddly enough, I have not seen anyone on tv who actually saw, or could describe the drone, never mind having the presence of mind to photograph it.

 

[Drestin Black]

The tally so far

 

[Raptorman0909]

I find it hard to imagine that in a country with so many CCTV cameras scattered about that they have not yet located the perps. Given the various sightings from numerous police, pilots, and other aviation professionals as well as the general public the truth appears that there were drones over Gatwick. And, given the above mentioned CCTV situation which one would think would be particularly dense around large airports it fairly boggles the mind that they have not found them yet.


Brian

 

[sar104]

I find it hard to imagine that in a country with so many CCTV cameras scattered about that they have not yet located the perps. Given the various sightings from numerous police, pilots, and other aviation professionals as well as the general public the truth appears that there were drones over Gatwick. And, given the above mentioned CCTV situation which one would think would be particularly dense around large airports it fairly boggles the mind that they have not found them yet.


Brian

There's no CCTV on all the country lanes that surround Gatwick.

 

[With The Birds]

I find it hard to imagine that in a country with so many CCTV cameras scattered about that they have not yet located the perps. Given the various sightings from numerous police, pilots, and other aviation professionals as well as the general public the truth appears that there were drones over Gatwick. And, given the above mentioned CCTV situation which one would think would be particularly dense around large airports it fairly boggles the mind that they have not found them yet.


Brian

What seems to be common with CCTV systems is that they aren’t pointed at the sky and almost always have wide fields of view with very poor low light performance (that is outside the area effectively covered by the active IR illumination). For those reasons it should be no surprise that we won’t have much if any footage of he drone(s) from that source.

 

[Numone]

To the extent you might have the capability of doing so try and put yourself in their position, even briefly.... Having the authorities go through your house, being detained, subject to interrogation and false accusations while the whole world is watching.... you probably have no idea what your are talking about- that’s how it seems.

I assure you, I have both the capacity and capability. 10 years ago, my family was directly involved in a very public murder case - it was incredibly distressing and invasive, to everyone involved. We were offered a very large sum of money to tell all by three of the tabloids and Sky TV; we chose not to. That's how I know. They chose to put themselves in front of the cameras asking for their privacy (oh the irony). If you really want privacy, that's the last thing you do, but with the perceived "massive" inducements people are now offered by the published and broadcast tabloids, the world of social media and the need of five minutes of fame, I also understand why they'd choose to do that.

 

[With The Birds]

I assure you, I have both the capacity and capability. 10 years ago, my family was directly involved in a very public murder case - it was incredibly distressing and invasive, to everyone involved. We were offered a very large sum of money to tell all by three of the tabloids and Sky TV; we chose not to. That's how I know. They chose to put themselves in front of the cameras asking for their privacy (oh the irony). If you really want privacy, that's the last thing you do, but with the perceived "massive" inducements people are now offered by the published and broadcast tabloids, the world of social media and the need of five minutes of fame, I also understand why they'd choose to do that.

I’m sorry to hear you had to endure those circumstances.

It goes a long way to explaining your attitude here.

 

[Alvaro L]

That was considered, but rejected because of the danger from the stray bullets.

Any seasoned hunter would bring down any drone within 5 minutes with no stray bullets, by using common ammunition for bird hunting which spreads a beam of very small iron balls in the shot direction, you don't need to call the army snipers for this job. This whole story smells very fishy from the very beginning to the end.

 

[Alicatt]

What seems to be common with CCTV systems is that they aren’t pointed at the sky and almost always have wide fields of view with very poor low light performance (that is outside the area effectively covered by the active IR illumination). For those reasons it should be no surprise that we won’t have much if any footage of he drone(s) from that source.

The fully functional CCTV cameras generally will not point much above the horizon, fixed cameras are looking at one thing in particular and usually that is not sky. I have fitted cameras that can identify a person at a mile away, fitted with a IR laser for illumination at night but that is not your typical CCTV camera. I had occasion to do a test with a prototype camera and lens against an existing camera fitted with an image intensifier, the camera I was using would go down to almost as low light as the intensified camera but still have a colour picture, when I switched it over to monochrome and commanded the IR cut filter to retract then the camera went as low as the intensified camera. The test was to detect a group infiltrating a secure site which I could do, I could spot them well before they reached the fence line and the intensified camera couldn't. What you see on the news and caught in camera type tv shows are not representative of what a properly setup camera system can do. With that prototype camera I could see the nebula in Orion's sword. Now that camera was being tested 17 years ago and I retired from the CCTV industry in 2005.
Video I took using that CCTV camera:

 

[landmannnn]

I think it has been established that police were out on the airfield with shotguns. For reasons not explained, they were not authorized to shoot at the drone(s).

 

[With The Birds]

The fully functional CCTV cameras generally will not point much above the horizon, fixed cameras are looking at one thing in particular and usually that is not sky. I have fitted cameras that can identify a person at a mile away, fitted with a IR laser for illumination at night but that is not your typical CCTV camera. I had occasion to do a test with a prototype camera and lens against an existing camera fitted with an image intensifier, the camera I was using would go down to almost as low light as the intensified camera but still have a colour picture, when I switched it over to monochrome and commanded the IR cut filter to retract then the camera went as low as the intensified camera. The test was to detect a group infiltrating a secure site which I could do, I could spot them well before they reached the fence line and the intensified camera couldn't. What you see on the news and caught in camera type tv shows are not representative of what a properly setup camera system can do. With that prototype camera I could see the nebula in Orion's sword. Now that camera was being tested 17 years ago and I retired from the CCTV industry in 2005.
Video I took using that CCTV camera:

Yes there are specialised cameras however, as I had said- most aren’t going to be pointed up and unassisted low light performance will be very poor. The Astro shot you posted- was the camera mounted on a telescope? Was an equatorial mount used? How many frames where stacked in software to give the final image? How much post processing?

Given your experience with CCTV would you expect the sUAS to have been caught by a fixed camera?

 

[Numone]

I’m sorry to hear you had to endure those circumstances.

It goes a long way to explaining your attitude here.

Thanks WTB for you understanding....

 

[Raptorman0909]

What seems to be common with CCTV systems is that they aren’t pointed at the sky and almost always have wide fields of view with very poor low light performance (that is outside the area effectively covered by the active IR illumination). For those reasons it should be no surprise that we won’t have much if any footage of he drone(s) from that source.

The value of CCTV isn't to see the drones flying in the sky but to note the people that pass by them ... and when. If an event takes place somewhere in the middle if a 10 block by 10 block area and you have cameras that record the people and vehicles that pass by the various intersections then a review of those cameras should permit you to hone in on potential culprits. That wouldn't be the end of it, of course, but it would give you somewhere to start.


Brian

 

[Raptorman0909]

There's no CCTV on all the country lanes that surround Gatwick.

Not even the UK has cameras everywhere, but Gatwick is surrounded by major motorways like: M23, M25, A24, A264. Cameras at the intersections would record all vehicles and people that pass them. To be sure there's quite of few people that live within those boundaries, but if the perps came from outside that area they could use those cameras to produce a list of potential suspects. I've poked around on Google Maps streetview and found a number of cameras in that area.


Brian

 

[sar104]

Not even the UK has cameras everywhere, but Gatwick is surrounded by major motorways like: M23, M25, A24, A264. Cameras at the intersections would record all vehicles and people that pass them. To be sure there's quite of few people that live within those boundaries, but if the perps came from outside that area they could use those cameras to produce a list of potential suspects. I've poked around on Google Maps streetview and found a number of cameras in that area.


Brian

I going to make a wild guess that you're unfamiliar with the UK. The density of people and traffic on the main roads around there would make it completely impractical. How would they distinguish a suspect from anyone else in the area?

 

[Raptorman0909]

I going to make a wild guess that you're unfamiliar with the UK. The density of people and traffic on the main roads around there would make it completely impractical. How would they distinguish a suspect from anyone else in the area?

By identifying the vehicles that pass by, you know, the wheeled boxes with license plates on them.


Brian

 

[With The Birds]

The value of CCTV isn't to see the drones flying in the sky but to note the people that pass by them ... and when. If an event takes place somewhere in the middle if a 10 block by 10 block area and you have cameras that record the people and vehicles that pass by the various intersections then a review of those cameras should permit you to hone in on potential culprits. That wouldn't be the end of it, of course, but it would give you somewhere to start.


Brian

Gotcha- my comments were misguided or at least outside the context of your post. Yes, of course we should expect CCTV might have caught some critical intel from ground movements. A lot of the grunt work could, and probably would be done by software with analysts manually working in the refined product. The problem here of course is that the drone(s) May have been launched outside of an area with coverage (probably) and with a high likelihood the offenders did not need to pass a camera to get to the launch site. Direct launch from private property or an isolated position accessed by foot as two examples.

I think we might safely assume the authorities have completed or as substantially progressed in analysis of any available footage. The fact it has proved unproductive just means the perpetrators aren’t fools and are familiar with investigative opportunities.

 

[sar104]

By identifying the vehicles that pass by, you know, the wheeled boxes with license plates on them.


Brian

Yes - but two problems. Firstly, most CCTV doesn't read the plates and secondly, which was my basic point, even if you could read the plates - how would that distinguish suspects from non-suspects?

 

[With The Birds]

Yes - but two problems. Firstly, most CCTV doesn't read the plates and secondly, which was my basic point, even if you could read the plates - how would that distinguish suspects from non-suspects?

It can’t, or at least it would seem a near impossibility absent other intelligence and investigative efforts.

Assume though that the authorities had intelligence and a suspicion a certain group might be connected with the offending. The surveillance product might be very useful in those circumstances.

You may be surprised how effectively toll road and other traffic and infrastructure monitoring cameras can read vehicle plates.

 

[N017RW]

By identifying the vehicles that pass by, you know, the wheeled boxes with license plates on them.


Brian

It seems like you might expect that they ID a suspect(s) via vehicle or plate due to previous drone/UAS violations?,
or,
the Bobbies visit every one who's vehicle image was captured during a specific time span on specific motorways?