https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713

Just in the news guys - hope it’s resolved ASAP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Departures at London’s Heathrow airport stopped after drone sighting

Will this be a real drone or a police drone or no drone at all.
Let's see what happens.

All departures have been stopped for over a half hour and reports are the north runway is shut down. LHR just put out a tweet moments ago confirming:

https://twitter.com/HeathrowAirport/sta ... 1379702784

With two runways, it shouldn't be as bad as the LGW situation, but if capacity is halved at LHR, it will be a world of hurt. And the British government is going to have major egg on its face if it can't get this under control.

Departures suspended.

This is going to be interesting

Departures now on southern runway.
https://www.flightradar24.com/AAR521/1f1d1629

Wow, I hope there is a quicker response than LGW.

readytotaxi wrote:

Departures now on southern runway.
https://www.flightradar24.com/AAR521/1f1d1629

I haven't seen any departures on the southern runway since 5:13 GMT. Plenty of arrivals, though. An LH flight to MUC looks like the last.

lightsaber wrote:

Wow, I hope there is a quicker response than LGW.

And, as is looked now, that police drones aren't mistaken for other drones.

Plus a go-around too. AAR521

LHR disruption tonight after alleged drone sightings.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/08/planes-g ... ssion=true[*]

A36034 (Aegean A321) and KL1022 just departed 27R.

Looking at FlightRadar24 planes are still landing and taking off however all news sources are claiming the Runway is closed.

Back open already it seems.

North runway looks like it has reopened

FR24 shows arrivals and departures pretty much on time now.

The incident at LGW started the same did it not? Closed briefly, opened again, then closed for an extended time.
I assume that after the last issue there were a lot of discussions as to how this could be better dealt with. And I believe there was also mention of better systems in place at LHR that would make the issue easier to control, although that was just info that I read in the LGW thread, so not sure as to the validity of the claim, can anyone confirm that LHR does in fact have some sort of system in place to control drone issues?

musapapaya wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713

Just in the news guys - hope it’s resolved ASAP.

Wow; that was a big disappointment (for some). It appears that the authorities got their act together this time, despite the dire predictions of "incompetence". It's a pity some of the naysayers (across multiple threads) couldn't find it in their hearts to come back here and update us with their views.
Meanwhile, I'm going to attempt to summarise all the facts here in one single post.

8th January 2019
17:05 First drone sighting
17:12 LH2477 is last a/c to take-off from rwy 27R
17:13 to 18:10 arrivals continue on 27L (south side); no departures on 27R (north side)
17:45 Report of a drone over Harmondsworth (adjacent to Heathrow, north side)
18:11 Departure runway 27R re-opens with Aegean A3603

Who saw the drone? Unlike the recent situation at Gatwick, the Police were very quick to confirm that amongst others, it was seen by their own officers.

Scotland Yard said a "full criminal investigation" had been launched into the incident - and that officers were among those to see the drone.

Equally significant, a named BBC cameraman (who works with drones, so he might know a thing or two) reports sighting the drone as he was driving slowly past Heathrow on the M25. I say slowly, because he had time to watch the drone over 4 or 5 minutes; whereas if the M25 had been clear, he should have been half-way past Slough by then.

BBC cameraman Martin Roberts wrote:

...was driving on the M25 past Heathrow airport at about 17:45 GMT when he saw what he believes was a drone.
"I could see, I'd say around 300 feet up, very bright, stationary flashing red and green lights, over the Harmondsworth area," he said.
"I could tell it was a drone - these things have got quite distinctive lights - not a helicopter."

I have several observations of my own to add.
1) This BBC cameraman is unlikely to have defective vision, and if he needs prescription glasses, he surely wears them.
He is familiar with drones, and had time enough to study the object in the sky in order to be more certain of his facts. However, this was in the dark, so absolute identification is always going to be problematic for anybody.
2) Police Officers claiming to have seen a drone are going to be quizzed quite rigorously by their superior officers. Therefore I have some confidence that they weren't just having a laugh or hoping for 15 minutes of fame either.
3) Assuming the BBC cameraman reported his sighting to the Police, quite possibly along with several hundred other motorists on the M25, along with reports from residents all around Harmondsworth, this would have represented a confirmation of the original sighting, 45 minutes after the original, and yet this did not prevent Heathrow re-opening just 20 minutes later.
4) Given the above, was the 17:45 sighting a Police or Army drone, allowing the authorities to discount these fresh sightings?
5) A private drone airborne "over Harmondsworth" could possibly be just outside the 1 km limit, and therefore perfectly legal.

I can see an argument for altering the legislation to grant major airports an enhanced drone-free perimeter zone, maybe 5 km. There is a world of difference between keeping Heathrow safe, and protecting Farmer Giles' farm strip.

That's all folks!

BBC cameraman Martin Roberts wrote:

...was driving on the M25 past Heathrow airport at about 17:45 GMT when he saw what he believes was a drone.
"I could see, I'd say around 300 feet up, very bright, stationary flashing red and green lights, over the Harmondsworth area," he said.
"I could tell it was a drone - these things have got quite distinctive lights - not a helicopter."

Frankly that's a load of nonsense. Judging type and altitude of an object at night with the naked eye is nearly impossible, and beyond so when travelling in a car.

There is a world of difference between keeping Heathrow safe, and protecting Farmer Giles' farm strip.

The difference being that one a commercial entity that can lobby politicians in its favour and the other is Farmer Giles in his microlight? We really shouldn't be bending over backwards for the convenience of corporations, especially when they already pollute well beyond their boundaries. If drones are causing them problems then they need to step up and take countermeasures, just like how they erect a fence around their perimeter instead of relying on a "5km exclusion zone".

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

"I could see, I'd say around 300 feet up, very bright, stationary flashing red and green lights, over the Harmondsworth area," he said.
"I could tell it was a drone - these things have got quite distinctive lights - not a helicopter."

Did you not watch the news this morning? There were at least two filmed shots of it as well. One - which looks like it's taken with a phone from inside a terminal - shows a couple of flashing pixels hovering at the top of the screen with aircraft taxiing in the bottom of the screen, the other looks more like professional camerwork facing up towards the object from below - clearly looks like your typical Phantom type drone lights.

ELBOB wrote:

BBC cameraman Martin Roberts wrote:

...was driving on the M25 past Heathrow airport at about 17:45 GMT when he saw what he believes was a drone.
"I could see, I'd say around 300 feet up, very bright, stationary flashing red and green lights, over the Harmondsworth area," he said.
"I could tell it was a drone - these things have got quite distinctive lights - not a helicopter."

Frankly that's a load of nonsense. Judging type and altitude of an object at night with the naked eye is nearly impossible, and beyond so when travelling in a car.

I don't believe you thought that through enough. The car adds a favorable extra dynamic in this particular situation. If the object was high or far away, travelling ½mile in a car would make no difference. But if it is low and nearby and more or less stationary, it starts off in your 11 o'clock position and quickly transitions to 8 o'clock by which time your neck is twisted. Meanwhile the buildings beneath it exhibit the same apparent movement. It's called parallax.
This means we are talking either a drone, or a helicopter.
If you have ever watched a helicopter at night, you would know there are certain tell-tales. Particularly at such a low level.
Meanwhile, this guy, who has worked with drones in a professional capacity, states that they have "quite distinctive lights".

Having said that, any miscreant looking to get away with illegally flying a drone at night would be wise to cover up these lights with opaque adhesive tape. Likewise, we often get low level MC-130J's thundering overhead at midnight, with their navigation lights blacked-out.

I had my doubts about the whole Gatwick affair, and indeed still do.
This seems a more genuine event, although I also see the possibility the drone was flying legally, i.e. just outside the 1km exclusion limit. That would be close enough to cause a mild panic.

A drone operator was arrested today (for offence on December 24th...):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46935933
Seems he will appear in court on Tuesday (Jan 22nd). Any idea what punishment he might expect?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

ELBOB wrote:

BBC cameraman Martin Roberts wrote:

...was driving on the M25 past Heathrow airport at about 17:45 GMT when he saw what he believes was a drone.
"I could see, I'd say around 300 feet up, very bright, stationary flashing red and green lights, over the Harmondsworth area," he said.
"I could tell it was a drone - these things have got quite distinctive lights - not a helicopter."

Frankly that's a load of nonsense. Judging type and altitude of an object at night with the naked eye is nearly impossible, and beyond so when travelling in a car.

I don't believe you thought that through enough. The car adds a favorable extra dynamic in this particular situation. If the object was high or far away, travelling ½mile in a car would make no difference. But if it is low and nearby and more or less stationary, it starts off in your 11 o'clock position and quickly transitions to 8 o'clock by which time your neck is twisted. Meanwhile the buildings beneath it exhibit the same apparent movement. It's called parallax.
This means we are talking either a drone, or a helicopter.
If you have ever watched a helicopter at night, you would know there are certain tell-tales. Particularly at such a low level.
Meanwhile, this guy, who has worked with drones in a professional capacity, states that they have "quite distinctive lights".

Having said that, any miscreant looking to get away with illegally flying a drone at night would be wise to cover up these lights with opaque adhesive tape. Likewise, we often get low level MC-130J's thundering overhead at midnight, with their navigation lights blacked-out.

I had my doubts about the whole Gatwick affair, and indeed still do.
This seems a more genuine event, although I also see the possibility the drone was flying legally, i.e. just outside the 1km exclusion limit. That would be close enough to cause a mild panic.

Nope. Mr. Roberts's experience and words are almost an exact match of my own. On December 19th, I was driving home, near Gatwick, at 21.45 or so and noticed a strange object in the sky over the airport. As a local resident, aviation enthusiast, and seasoned Gatwick observer, it was immediately clear that this was neither a departing/arriving flight nor a helicopter. Three things stood out: its altitude, the pairs of green and red lights on its underside, and the fact that it was stationary (I even said "What on earth is that?" to my wife). I thought no more of it until the following morning when the story was all over the media. One of the two news sources (I can't recall which) that I typically turn to first, the BBC and The Telegraph, had a grainy photograph of the offending drone accompanying the story on its website and the red and green lights were immediately apparent. I wonder if the drones that Mr. Roberts and I saw were the same model - or even the same one - and I wonder too what efforts have been made to track down the precise type of drone this was, given the red/green lights etc.?

vaughanparry wrote:

A drone operator was arrested today (for offence on December 24th...):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46935933
Seems he will appear in court on Tuesday (Jan 22nd). Any idea what punishment he might expect?

Potentially: A fine (no statutory maximum) and/or 5 years in prison.

vaughanparry wrote:

Nope. Mr. Roberts's experience and words are almost an exact match of my own. On December 19th, I was driving home, near Gatwick, at 21.45 or so and noticed a strange object in the sky over the airport. As a local resident, aviation enthusiast, and seasoned Gatwick observer, it was immediately clear that this was neither a departing/arriving flight nor a helicopter. Three things stood out: its altitude, the pairs of green and red lights on its underside, and the fact that it was stationary (I even said "What on earth is that?" to my wife). I thought no more of it until the following morning when the story was all over the media.

Mr V-P; I'm curious as to why you didn't mention this before, such as when you posted on the Gatwick drone thread on Dec 20th, about 12 hours after your own sighting at Gatwick. I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait....

Meanwhile, for anybody else confused by the various timelines; this latest BBC report pertains to a man flying a drone near to Heathrow, but on a date that did not result in any shutdown or indeed any associated news report. Perhaps there was a news blackout on this event until now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

{Edited to remove vast quantities of barely relevant verbiage (mine, not yours...) }

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

vaughanparry wrote:

Nope. Mr. Roberts's experience and words are almost an exact match of my own. On December 19th, I was driving home, near Gatwick, at 21.45 or so and noticed a strange object in the sky over the airport. As a local resident, aviation enthusiast, and seasoned Gatwick observer, it was immediately clear that this was neither a departing/arriving flight nor a helicopter. Three things stood out: its altitude, the pairs of green and red lights on its underside, and the fact that it was stationary (I even said "What on earth is that?" to my wife). I thought no more of it until the following morning when the story was all over the media.

Mr V-P; I'm curious as to why you didn't mention this before, such as when you posted on the Gatwick drone thread on Dec 20th, about 12 hours after your own sighting at Gatwick. I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait....

Meanwhile, for anybody else confused by the various timelines; this latest BBC report pertains to a man flying a drone near to Heathrow, but on a date that did not result in any shutdown or indeed any associated news report. Perhaps there was a news blackout on this event until now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

{Edited to remove vast quantities of barely relevant verbiage (mine, not yours...) }

" I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you..."
Seriously? I was far too busy with work, family, Christmas etc. and felt no need at all at the time to add my experience to the myriad other comments at the time. "...innocent explanation" implies some kind of offence which is a very melodramatic idea! It's only been more recently with the arrest of offenders etc. that I felt I had something worthwhile to contribute.
"...an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait...."
Er, I only post when I feel have a personal and interesting (I hope!) contribution to make to a thread, as was the case here (it seems you have time to monitor another a.netter's post history! Again, a little strange . No doubt the LHR/LGW drones story has more to offer, time will tell...

vaughanparry wrote:

On December 19th, I was driving home, near Gatwick, at 21.45 or so and noticed a strange object in the sky over the airport. As a local resident, aviation enthusiast, and seasoned Gatwick observer, it was immediately clear that this was neither a departing/arriving flight nor a helicopter. Three things stood out: its altitude, the pairs of green and red lights on its underside, and the fact that it was stationary (I even said "What on earth is that?" to my wife). I thought no more of it until the following morning when the story was all over the media.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Mr V-P; I'm curious as to why you didn't mention this before, such as when you posted on the Gatwick drone thread on Dec 20th, about 12 hours after your own sighting at Gatwick. I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait....

vaughanparry wrote:

" I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you..."
Seriously? I was far too busy with work, family, Christmas etc. and felt no need at all at the time to add my experience to the myriad other comments at the time. "...innocent explanation" implies some kind of offence which is a very melodramatic idea!

Au contraire, mon ami. I was trying very hard to achieve the opposite. If I had emphasized "innocent explanation" with inverted commas, exactly as you did, this does indeed represent an internet convention that implies sarcasm. But I did not - quite deliberately. You should try and think more generously of your fellow a.netters, at least up until the moment you are stabbed in the back. BTW - that's unlikely to be me.

As for feeling no need to share your experience to the myriad other comments; I beg to differ. Nobody else here had anything comparable to your first hand encounter, and neither were the sketchy newspaper reports forthcoming (until Mr Roberts eye-witness account, much, much later. So all we were left with was a myriad of other comments that could only speculate if the whole event was a sham. Your contribution would have been invaluable. I fear some people would have labelled you a liar, but that comes with a board that is dominated by the chattering classes. (with apologies to Auberon Waugh & possibly the DT)

VaughanParry wrote:

Shaky wrote:

"...an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait...."

Er, I only post when I feel have a personal and interesting (I hope!) contribution to make to a thread, as was the case here (it seems you have time to monitor another a.netter's post history! Again, a little strange

Again, a swing and a miss. Take a look at the screen in front of you. At the top of your post, immediately under your name there is an image possibly of yourself, and underneath that it says "Posts:12" and underneath that "Joined: 12 years ago". So it's hardly rocket science, and I was just trying to add a little humor.

VaughanParry wrote:

it seems you have time to monitor another a.netter's post history! Again, a little strange

Unlike the perceived slight above, there is no doubting what you are saying here. That is a direct personal insult all day long, albeit a fairly mild one by normal a.net standards.
Or am I being melodramatic? Either way, thanks for that.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

vaughanparry wrote:

On December 19th, I was driving home, near Gatwick, at 21.45 or so and noticed a strange object in the sky over the airport. As a local resident, aviation enthusiast, and seasoned Gatwick observer, it was immediately clear that this was neither a departing/arriving flight nor a helicopter. Three things stood out: its altitude, the pairs of green and red lights on its underside, and the fact that it was stationary (I even said "What on earth is that?" to my wife). I thought no more of it until the following morning when the story was all over the media.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Mr V-P; I'm curious as to why you didn't mention this before, such as when you posted on the Gatwick drone thread on Dec 20th, about 12 hours after your own sighting at Gatwick. I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait....

vaughanparry wrote:

" I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation, but with an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you..."
Seriously? I was far too busy with work, family, Christmas etc. and felt no need at all at the time to add my experience to the myriad other comments at the time. "...innocent explanation" implies some kind of offence which is a very melodramatic idea!

Au contraire, mon ami. I was trying very hard to achieve the opposite. If I had emphasized "innocent explanation" with inverted commas, exactly as you did, this does indeed represent an internet convention that implies sarcasm. But I did not - quite deliberately. You should try and think more generously of your fellow a.netters, at least up until the moment you are stabbed in the back. BTW - that's unlikely to be me.

As for feeling no need to share your experience to the myriad other comments; I beg to differ. Nobody else here had anything comparable to your first hand encounter, and neither were the sketchy newspaper reports forthcoming (until Mr Roberts eye-witness account, much, much later. So all we were left with was a myriad of other comments that could only speculate if the whole event was a sham. Your contribution would have been invaluable. I fear some people would have labelled you a liar, but that comes with a board that is dominated by the chattering classes. (with apologies to Auberon Waugh & possibly the DT)

VaughanParry wrote:

Shaky wrote:

"...an average of one post a year over the last 12 years from you, I'm prepared for a long wait...."

Er, I only post when I feel have a personal and interesting (I hope!) contribution to make to a thread, as was the case here (it seems you have time to monitor another a.netter's post history! Again, a little strange

Again, a swing and a miss. Take a look at the screen in front of you. At the top of your post, immediately under your name there is an image possibly of yourself, and underneath that it says "Posts:12" and underneath that "Joined: 12 years ago". So it's hardly rocket science, and I was just trying to add a little humor.

VaughanParry wrote:

it seems you have time to monitor another a.netter's post history! Again, a little strange

Unlike the perceived slight above, there is no doubting what you are saying here. That is a direct personal insult all day long, albeit a fairly mild one by normal a.net standards.
Or am I being melodramatic? Either way, thanks for that.

All fair points, all well made, and my apologies if I came across as unduly sensitive (several years - 12! - of watching a lot of a.netter bickering can do that to you!). In hindsight, perhaps I could have shared my experience of the LGW drone at the time and in future, encouraged by your kind comments above, I'll try to be less backward in coming forward. I've no doubt we'll both continue to follow this story very closely...