2 ms·

>No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Becau

>No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Because those useless security rules have only one real purpose - banning civilians from inconvenient things. It's not useless. Do you fly planes? If you look at the youtube video I posted elsewhere in this thread you'll see that the guy wanted to fly near the airport on the beach, but the geo fence wouldn't let him. The beach is <0.5nm from the end of the runways, so planes will be at <300ft crossing the beach. I fly there myself, and I don't want to hit a drone and risk losing the engine or having it crash through the windshield into my face. Unfortunately we need laws like this because people aren't responsible, as that youtube video proves.

EdHominem 11y ago
Useless because it's billed as stopping terrorists. Let's be honest, consider ham radios; the mandated but easily bypassed hardware lockouts are more useful for market segmentation than preventing bad guys from broadcasting on ATC frequencies. So as a convenience feature that told me I the conditions for where I'm flying, it'd be great. And then it'd only need to be 4-nines, and wouldn't have to have fail-proof lockouts, etc. But as a major portion of the defense of our air fleet - no. That's ridiculous. If we're that worried we need to figure out something to actually make us safer, not add another perpetual layer of theater.