Gatwick drone incident- misreporting of drone dome use

I Hudson made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Transport

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

The request was refused by Department for Transport.

Dear Department for Transport,

The DfT have made it clear in previous FOI requests that they do not wish to discuss the counter drone systems used at Gatwick from the 20th Dec 2018 which is an understandable stance.

However at the same time it should be the case that systems that were not used at Gatwick should not be credited as being used. For example UK C-UAS companies could lose sales if a competitor was incorrectly credited.

Some newspapers at the time reported that drone dome was used at Gatwick which is widely considered as misinformation in the drone world especially given post Gatwick it was reported by the BBC the Israeli drone dome wasn't used. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-su...

Could the DfT put the matter to rest by simply confirming if the BBC assertion that drone dome was not used is correct?

Yours faithfully,

I Hudson

Department for Transport

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for information which
has been allocated reference number P0019809.

A response will be issued to you in due course.

Regards,

Department for Transport
FOI Advice Team

show quoted sections

Department for Transport

1 Attachment

Dear I Hudson

Please find attached the response to your recent correspondence to the
Department for Transport.

Thank you,

Department for Transport
PO Correspondence
1st Floor, Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
LONDON
SW1P 4DR

http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/contact/

show quoted sections

Dear Department for Transport,

I wish for my request P0019809 to be treated as an FOI and to not be evaded by suggesting it's a general enquiry, I was asking a question while providing private sector information.

To aid processing my request fairly, as an FOI I'll reword my request to be more specific:

According to DfT records were the services of the company Rafael sought in December 2018, did the DfT or partner agencies use solutions from Rafael according to your records and if so is the DfT aware of the cost of seeking their services?

Yours faithfully,

I Hudson

Department for Transport

Dear Sir,

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for information which
has been allocated reference number P0020000.

A response will be issued to you in due course.

Regards,

Department for Transport
FOI Advice Team

show quoted sections

Richard Rose, Department for Transport

1 Attachment

Dear I Hudson,

 

Please find attached a letter in response to FOI requests F0019999 and
F002000.

 

Thanks, Richard

show quoted sections

Dear Department for Transport,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Transport's handling of my FOI request 'Gatwick drone incident- misreporting of drone dome use'.

The DfT can readily establish what counter drone was used at Gatwick and which was not, the systems used have already been redacted in previous requests. It's never been explained how it can be a matter of National Security when the companies at Gatwick have themselves disclosed their presence and the systems.

This information is within the "Operation Trebor Debrief" the DfT will have been sent from Sussex Police and is almost certainly in the following e-mail:

C-UAV Capability UK Airports 24 December 2018 and this information was e-mailed internally by a staff member with the title "Aviation Security Policy, Department for Transport" and has an attachment detailing the mitigation technology deployed at Gatwick LGW.

Staff members receiving a copy of the e-mail chain at the DfT include: [email address] ; Gisela Carr [email address]

I'd like an internal review on this request as it's simply been dismissed with the implication there is a cost involved to find the data, when it's not data that presents any difficulty to be found. Indeed the original assertions it was National Security means the data must have already been found to come to such a conclusion. It's information you've already collected and redacted in previous requests where you've not even explained the redactions that have taken place and why.

See for example: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g...

Yours faithfully,

I Hudson

FOI-ADVICE-TEAM-DFT, Department for Transport

Dear I Hudson,

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of FOI response F0020000. We aim to respond on or before the 3rd September 2021.

Regards,

Ivan Pocock
Information Rights Adviser, Information Rights (Data Protection and FOI) Team, Governance Division, Group Assurance and Digital Directorate

Department for Transport
3rd Floor, One Priory Square,
Hastings, TN34 1EA

show quoted sections

FOI-ADVICE-TEAM-DFT, Department for Transport

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Hudson

 

Further to your recent request for an internal review.

 

Please see the attached letter.

 

Kind regards

 

Information Rights Team

 

[1][IMG] Information Rights Team, Governance Division

, Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 4DR        
[2]Follow us on twitter @transportgovuk 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI-ADVICE-TEAM-DFT,

Regards internal review: F0020000

I don't feel my request has been read properly or understood, the internal review says I was offered the opportunity to target my request, implying that I didn't target the request but I did.

I said first for a target:

"To aid processing my request fairly, as an FOI I'll reword my request to be more specific:

According to DfT records were the services of the company Rafael sought in December 2018, did the DfT or partner agencies use solutions from Rafael according to your records and if so is the DfT aware of the cost of seeking their services?"

Then to make matters even easier, when I asked for the internal review I specifically named just one e-mail that likely has the data I seek, how can it take over 24 hours to check a single e-mail?

I specifically gave the title of the e-mail which was and has the attachment to answer the question:
C-UAV Capability UK Airports 24 December 2018

Please clarify how finding one e-mail can truly be so difficult.

Yours sincerely,

I Hudson