23 ms·
"Regulated" can mean anything from "enforcement of reasonable precaution" to "banned on the basis of irrational fear." Existing regulations already meet the for
by jjoonathan 11y ago
"Regulated" can mean anything from "enforcement of reasonable precaution" to "banned on the basis of irrational fear." Existing regulations already meet the former standard IMO -- it's not like the drone operator was operating legally and will get away scott-free even if caught.
> A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) spokesman said it was "totally unacceptable" to fly drones close to airports, and anyone flouting the rules can face "severe penalties, including imprisonment"
Calls to "regulate" are then actually calls to increase bureaucratic barriers and harshen penalties, which will likely have a disproportionately large impact on legitimate applications of the technology and a disproportionately small impact on those who choose, as this drone operator did, to break the rules.
- taspeotis 11y ago> Existing regulations already meet the former standard The article implicitly makes this point, too. > Steve Landells, from the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), said it had been "only a matter of time before we had a drone strike". He called for greater enforcement of existing rules. (Emphasis mine.)
- jjoonathan 11y agoI'd say it explicitly makes the point too :-) > Flying a drone near an airport can already be punished with up to five years in prison, and rules also forbid taking them above 400ft (122m) or near buildings and crowds of people.
- Daviey 11y agoHe was on BBC Radio 4 this morning, claiming that BALPA is setting up a project to do testing similar to that of bird strikes on aircraft, such as windscreens. However, he did put emphasis on avoiding through education - rather than just testing impact.
- pyrale 11y agoA call to regulate can be understood both as asking for new law, and asking for a better enforcement of existing law.