Reply to post: Re: Have to say

UK drone collision study didn't show airliner window penetration

Cuddles Silver badge

Re: Have to say

"I'm a bit confused by the governments approach on this. There's plenty in there to indicate there is some danger to aircraft and that some sensible mitigation measures could be applied."

Yeah, this is the part that really confuses me about the whole thing. You don't need to cause an airliner to instantly explode in a massive Hollywood fireball for there to be a problem worth taking note of. There's plenty of evidence that drones can cause costly damage to large aircraft, and potentially fatal damage to lighter aircraft and helicopters. So why not just say that and be done with it? There's absolutely no need to scribble over everything with a black felt-tip while telling blatant lies about it all, when the truth gives all the motivation you need to propose whatever rules you want. Whether those rules would actually do anything to help with either the real or imaginary problems is a different matter, of course.

As a side note, this has been pointed out pretty much every time El Reg has commented on the matter, but there absolutely are drones designed to carry full-size DSLR cameras. There are plenty of issues with the tests, and especially the reporting afterwards, so perhaps it would be a good idea to focus on the real problems and not keep banging on about one of the perfectly valid parts.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019