Not good.
Same thing almost happened at Amsterdam airport a week or two ago, even though there is legislation against flying anywhere near approach zones already. Honestly, I don't think that there is enough legislation to combat unwanted drone usage. It's just too easy to setup and fly over an area that endangers others.
Was in the process of typing something up and then I went and took my kid to the library and shit. SO HERE'S THE THING: So far as I know, most of the bullshit quadcopter traffic happens at 2.4 GHz. That's where WiFi lives, which isn't by accident. There's no licensing requirements for 2.4GHz. So far as I know, most of the legit coax/collective pitch/ real R/C traffic - the pilots that have their own fields that they subscribe to, that know what they're doing, that were in this stuff long before quadcopters took to the skies - happens in CB band. To get in there, you need a license. Not much of one, but the 72MHz/53MHz posse ain't the same land as the stupid drone guys. All that has to happen is for Heathrow to decide they're sick of this shit and they start jamming 2.4Mhz. That automagically throws your quadcopter into hover'n'land protocols because when it doesn't have any inputs, it'll park itself and pray for recovery. It'd actually be a really cheap move for the FAA or any national aviation authority to decide to just blanket the airwaves within airport property at 2.4GHz and straight-up fuckin' kill drone flights. They'd also kill airport wifi, which is why they haven't done it yet, but I reckon we aren't far off from somebody proposing that this shit needs to stop right now and if the average business traveler has to choose between "not getting my email" or "drone pilots being shot on sight" some drone pilots are gonna f'n die. I'm actually kinda curious why anti-drone approaches haven't boiled down to "smack that fucker with broadband microwave and park its ass." I mean, theoretically they could be autonomous. Theoretically they could be line-of-sight tightbeam. But they never, ever are.
Not a bad idea at all. Although the tech would not be difficult to develop, deploying it and maintaining the system by the aircraft companies is unlikely in the U.S.'s system (based on today's drone "risk" statistics, at least). I also believe that a localized ground-based jamming system is better, for the simple reason that it's a lower cost for the upkeep. Long term operation of a highly-radiating aircraft antenna (with high directivity) in the temperature range of Atlanta's runway vs. Anchorage's has some engineering challenges.
The thing is the only ability to jam wireless signals I am aware of emit a strong noise-type signal that makes picking up any real signals impossible. It's like screaming loudly in a room to interrupt another conversation. Imagine a plane doing this while flying over a bunch of homes, or coming in for a landing. Ultimately I think that this is a matter of a new tech that just needs to be regulated and clamped down on, as it's free use is causing problems that are larger than the benefits of the freedom of buying and using drones without regulation, so drones will need to be.