Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday December 21 2018, @06:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the buckshot-or-HK dept.

BBC:

The Army has deployed "specialist equipment" to Gatwick Airport as the travel chaos caused by drone activity shows no sign of abating. Tens of thousands of passengers on several airlines have been disrupted by drones flying over the airport. In a tweet, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson had confirmed the military deployment.

He said: "The armed forces have a range of unique capabilities and this isn't something we would usually deploy but we are there to assist and do everything we can so that they are in a position to open the airport at the earliest opportunity."

Gatwick's runway has been shut since Wednesday night because devices have been repeatedly flown over the airfield.

Free insightful mods for the most creative solution.

Updates:

Shooting down a drone which has caused chaos at Gatwick Airport is a "tactical option" being considered by police. The measure had previously been ruled out by Sussex Police, which cited concerns over "stray bullets". But with the airport expected to remain closed on Friday, Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley said the force would "do what we can to take that drone out of the sky".

Gatwick runway reopens after disruption

A Gatwick spokesperson said: "Gatwick's runway is currently available and a limited number of aircraft are scheduled for departure and arrival. Gatwick continues to advise passengers to check the status of their flight with their airline before travelling to the airport as departures and arrivals will be subject to delays and cancellations."

Related: 3,500 Troops on Standby to Prepare for a "No-Deal Brexit"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday December 21 2018, @10:20AM (6 children)

    by isostatic (365) on Friday December 21 2018, @10:20AM (#777155) Journal

    After all, airports regularly fuck people who travel and people who live next door.

    Very few "people who live next door", lived there before the airport. The worst type of NIMBY is the one who buys a discounted house because of the airport/powerplant/highway next door, then complains about said airport/powerplant/highway

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday December 21 2018, @11:18AM (2 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday December 21 2018, @11:18AM (#777164) Journal

    The worst type of NIMBY is the one who buys a discounted house because of the airport/powerplant/highway next door, then complains about said airport/powerplant/highway

    I can top that:

    1. Situation at start: Free space near highway, town doesn't allow to build there because of the noise.
    2. People don't accept that, sue town. Court says town must allow building.
    3. People build houses there.
    4. People (surprise, surprise) find the noise annoying. Complain to town that something has to be done about it.

    5. Town points out that they said so from the beginning, doesn't want to pay for noise reduction measures.
    6. People go to court and win. Town has to build noise protection walls.
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @06:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @06:50PM (#777272)

      Spineless courts.

      #6 should have been a rebuke from the Judge:

      You folks sued to build houses in an area where the town said the noise was such that you should not be allowed to build. You therefore knew full well what you were getting into. Therefore, no, you get to pay for noise suppression yourself.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday December 22 2018, @11:50AM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday December 22 2018, @11:50AM (#777505)

      The problem with numbers two and three is that it is usually just one scummy real estate developer who does the suing and building. He's made his bucks and vanished by the time the noise complaints start. What they need to do for any building that does get forced unto free space or buffer zones is require that the developer is financially liable for any future issues that arise from building in these zones. Of course, they would likely have to rewrite corporate laws first...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @01:17PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @01:17PM (#777179)

    Very few "people who live next door", lived there before the airport.

    [citation needed] – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 21 2018, @05:11PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 21 2018, @05:11PM (#777248) Journal

      Well, the times I've lived near an airport the airport was there first. Granted my father was in the military.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @06:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @06:59PM (#777274)

      No citation needed.

      Very few airports are new construction in 2018 (most were built circa 1950-1970 or so).

      2018-1950 = 68 years
      2018-1970 = 48 years

      The far extreme (1950) is beginning to get close to the average human lifespan, therefore some larger percentage of folks who have lived in the same house, next to the airport, for 68 years have now passed away.

      The near extreme (1970) is at a point that many of those folks will still be alive in 2018. But, they would also have had to remain in the same house for 48 years straight now (which will remove from consideration some folks, as they will have moved in the intervening 48 years).

      So, therefore, some number of residents near airports have moved in after the airport was operational. Exactly what that percentage is we can't estimate just from the dates (but for a specific area, locality real-estate sales records would indicate who was a resident pre-airport vs. who bought a property after the airport was operational.

      For those residents that bought a property after the airport was operational, their complaints should simply be met with: "you knew it was there when you bought, if you don't like it, then move elsewhere".

      The only residents for which a complaint should be listened to are those who bought property before the airport was operational, and remain in that property (which as shown above, will be something less than 100% but likely more than 0%).

      Now, for areas that have had new flight paths added, which previously did not have flight paths overhead, the same rules should still apply. If you have owned the property since before the flight path change, then you get to complain. If you bought after the flight path change, well, tough luck to you, you should have thought about this before buying.