Talk:Gatwick Airport drone incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed deletion

International media coverage suggests strong notability. Also the police are saying they have never dealt with an incident like this before, especially giving the amount of disruption that has been caused. This will be talked about for years to come and could see further anti-drone legislation enacted in response. GWA88 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Released without charge

@Firebrace: I am usually very hot on deleting redundant stuff, but I think we need this: On 23 December, after being questioned for almost 36 hours, the suspects were released without charge and ruled out of the investigation

My understanding is that being released without charge is not the same as being ruled out of suspicion. The police could still suspect their involvement, but not have enough evidence to detain them. That the police have explicitly said they have been ruled out of the investigation is a relevant point of information. Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added the couple were ruled out of the investigation so we're not just parroting what the authorities say. Firebrace (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, they are "no longer suspects". It seems the police 'investigation' was deplorable beyond belief [1]. I'm wondering whether this aspect of the story would normally be part of an article like this (I guess not), but what does anyone think? 86.156.221.64 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely part and parcel of the police investigation end of things. kencf0618 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Number

How many drones? The article makes it sound like one. I've heard between 2 and 6. 86.175.201.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

BBC states here[2] that two drones were sighted at the first instance, but does not go on to give further numbers PotentPotables ( talk ) 03:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It is impossible to say at this point. The Evening Standard says "Police say it is 'a possibility there was never a drone'". -Lopifalko (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Identification

Is there a reliable source which discusses the identification of the object in depth, rather than loosely carrying on using the term 'drone' when it might have been something else, such as a buzzard, for example?SovalValtos (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

RAF

What reliable sources are there for the RAF's reaction to what would seem to be an intrusion into UK airspace?SovalValtos (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Have you searched for some? Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found no source for the RAF reacting at all. Has anyone else Popcornduff? SovalValtos (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed counter measures

I removed the following isolated sentense

It is illegal for the police to interfere with radio signals, except in cases of "serious crime" and where a senior officer has given permission, hence a jammer was not used.

However, if someone wanted to add a new section that would be good. All that nonsense about shooting them down. Tuntable (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018 template

{{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018}} has been removed from this article; after the article was removed from that template.

Please see discussion at Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018#Gatwick Airport drone incident. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hoax?

This 'incident' is looking more and more like a hoax. There are no photographs of the alleged drones, despite literally hundreds of spy cameras deployed around the airport, and not one of the people who claim to have seen a drone have come forward for interview by the media. What's going on? How long before the article should be renamed to 'Gatwick Airport drone hoax', or are there other suggestions for a rename? 86.156.221.64 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We'll describe the incident as a hoax when the investigation and reliable sources describe it as a hoax. Which might never happen. Popcornduff (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite. Problem is with this sort of thing, so called reliable sources don't seem to exist. One might have hoped that Sussex Police or Gatwick Airport would qualify as reliable sources; clearly they aren't. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no shortage of reliable sources covering this event, including the BBC, Guardian, and CNN. As per WP:VERIFY, we go by what they say. Popcornduff (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not hoax, but a huge overreaction. I have added some info on the sightings themselves from reliable sources, but there aint much. This should be extended, but only by sourced speculation. Exactly how a 500g drone could bring down a 100 ton airliner has also been missed, if anyone can find a reliable source to that question it would be good to add. Tuntable (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid baseless speculation like "500g drone"; including on talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"500g drone" is not baseless. If there was any credible evidence that it was larger (given witness accounts) we would almost certainly have heard about it. So something to look out for. But not, I sadly agree, suitable for the main article.Tuntable (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Has a crime been committed?

To be included in Category:2018 crimes in the United Kingdom and Category:December 2018 crimes in Europe we need to be able to assert in Wikipedia's voice (and thus be able to support that assertion with reliable sources) that a crime has actually been committed. Reading the article I do not see that that is the case. All we seem to know is that the police have received what they call credible reports of drone sightings. I don't think that is good enough to support inclusion in these categories. I propose removing them until we, at least, have confirmation that there was at least one drone being flown illegally. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The sources still say this could be a misunderstanding somehow. The police even said it was possible the spotted drones were their own police drones. Popcornduff (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's no Battle of Los Angeles, but this is looking more and more like an inter-institutional clusterf*ck with a bit of hysteria thrown in. It is extremely The Adventure of Silver Blaze, given that in the smart phone era there have been no recordings released of the putative drone or drones. kencf0618 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If there was a recording of the drone, then some people would still doubt the location, date, time, etc. It's what conspiracy theorists do: ask for evidence then, if it's presented, refute the evidence... Firebrace (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

But there aint no recording. Nor any indication of what type of drone. Locations. No first hand witness statements. Nothing. So one does not have to be a conspiracy theorists to be suspicious. And when people talk of 500g drones destroying 100 ton airliners as if that was a major threat, the suspicion rightly grows.Tuntable (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

But you wouldn't believe it was real if there was a recording. Anyway, the police have said there was an unauthorised drone over Gatwick on 19 December. That's a criminal offence. We're not judge and jury... Firebrace (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What sources say that? The police have already said that refers to some later sightings, but not the sighting(s) atht stated the incident. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:I misremembered the source. Popcornduff (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We need sources that say so, and that's what we have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify - sources that say what, and which do we have? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Heathrow

Regarding edit - I think the information about the Heathrow drone incident might be worth including, as sources say it may be connected to the Gatwick incident: [3] Though I don't feel strongly. Popcornduff (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's confirmed that it is linked, then it's probably relevant, but not otherwise. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)