Another drone in the Airport

[SnowSkier]

Up to 10 years in prison for endangering aircraft safety and human life. Its - pretty much - compared to hijackings.

I think as usual, this guy will be fined and it will be a high-cost, for sure. I dont believe he will go to prison for this. That's the penalty but it doesn't aply most of the time. In this case, as I've read, the guy is a videographer and was making a video for real estate purposes, paid by some real estate agency.
They will consider "the crime" as small and it will be forgotten till a new situation occurs.

My 2 cents

 

[sar104]

No, see he was pointing out that it's not the technology, it's the person using it. Make sense?

Thought so.

No it doesn't. What is it with this current trend of responding to illegal/unsafe/immoral etc. actions, whether in the field of drones, politics or anything else by saying "But what about [insert random other illegal activity]..."?

 

[GreatScott]

No it doesn't. What is it with this current trend of responding to illegal/unsafe/immoral etc. actions, whether in the field of drones, politics or anything else by saying "But what about [insert random other illegal activity]..."?

Well, you just illustrated my point. That's exactly right. It's not the drone or car that's the issue.

 

[GreatScott]

Well, you just illustrated my point. That's exactly right. It's not the drone or car that's the issue.

And, that whole point was....it wasn't an irrelevant comment.

 

[sar104]

Well, you just illustrated my point. That's exactly right. It's not the drone or car that's the issue.

And, that whole point was....it wasn't an irrelevant comment.

Let's try a different tack. This is a thread about a drone intruding in an airport's airspace and shutting down flight operations. How, exactly, is the observation that cars are used in terrorist attacks or your observation that it wasn't the technology's fault, but the pilot's fault, relevant to the thread?

 

[GreatScott]

Let's try a different tack. This is a thread about a drone intruding in an airport's airspace and shutting down flight operations. How, exactly, is the observation that cars are used in terrorist attacks or your observation that it wasn't the technology's fault, but the pilot's fault, relevant to the thread?

Well, (I believe) their point was that you don't ban cars because of that. Or ban drones because they are capable of bad things. Instead safeguards should be put in place. Or counter measures to prevent. This thread has however become irrelevant. Safe flying.

 

[excalibur1814]

"The drone was found on the runway and handed over to the authorities, "

?? But that makes little sense other than to really annoy everyone and possibly lose your expensive drone. It must have been expensive, possibly, due to being so high. It just baffles me why anyone would do this OTHER than to get them banned.

 

[Chip]

...What is it with this current trend of responding to illegal/unsafe/immoral etc. actions, whether in the field of drones, politics or anything else by saying "But what about [insert random other illegal activity]..."?

One legit reason to do it is to point out a double standard in how such matters are reported or handled.

We have had two major incidents in Puget Sound in just three months involving reckless flying of airplanes which must have posed far more serious threats to air traffic and people on the ground than any drone incident in the last five years. But, you would never know that from reading the newspapers or watching TV.

 

[Chip]

This last incident involved a baggage handler who stole an 80 seat plane owned by Alaska Airlines. Just climbed in, fired her up and flew away from Seatac airport. He chose to fly south and do some barrel rolls over Puget Sound before crashing and killing himself. Now, if he had chosen to fly north he would have been over downtown Seattle in 5 minutes. Could have crashed into the Columbia tower in downtown Seattle in 5 minutes. Oh well, no hobby drone involved so no big deal.

 

[sar104]

One legit reason to do it is to point out a double standard in how such matters are reported or handled.

We have had two major incidents in Puget Sound in just three months involving reckless flying of airplanes which must have posed far more serious threats to air traffic and people on the ground than any drone incident in the last five years. But, you would never know that from reading the newspapers or watching TV.

One of those was obviously the stolen Q400, which must have received more news coverage than all drone-related incidents combined over the past few years.

 

[sar104]

This last incident involved a baggage handler who stole an 80 seat plane owned by Alaska Airlines. Just climbed in, fired her up and flew away from Seatac airport. He chose to fly south and do some barrel rolls over Puget Sound before crashing and killing himself. Now, if he had chosen to fly north he would have been over downtown Seattle in 5 minutes. Could have crashed into the Columbia tower in downtown Seattle in 5 minutes. Oh well, no hobby drone involved so no big deal.

You have to be joking. That incident received saturation national and international coverage for several days.

 

[Chip]

SAR, I trust your math and ability to reconstruct events so please help me here. Am I right about 5 minute flight time from Seatac to downtown Seattle? If Q400 crashed into skyscraper in downtown Seattle with full fuel load in middle of weekday what would be likely death/injury toll and total damage to city and state economy?

 

[sar104]

SAR, I trust your math and ability to reconstruct events so please help me here. Am I right about 5 minute flight time from Seatac to downtown Seattle? If Q400 crashed into skyscraper in downtown Seattle with full fuel load in middle of weekday what would be likely death/injury toll and total damage to city and state economy?

You don't need me to answer that. But where are you going with it?

 

[Chip]

...But where are you going with it?

Just getting back to explaining what I meant by double standard. The airline's absurd lack of security put entire state at risk. This does not excuse reckless drone flying but it may support the argument that the airline might be better off spending a few dollars on locks, cameras, and background checks than $millions to suppress and criminalize hobby drone flying.

 

[sar104]

Just getting back to explaining what I meant by double standard. The airline's absurd lack of security put entire state at risk. This does not excuse reckless drone flying but it may support the argument that the airline might be better off spending a few dollars on locks, cameras, and background checks than $millions to suppress and criminalize hobby drone flying.

I agree with your point on aircraft security. But I thought your double standard referred to reporting of the news, not money spent making things safe.

Other than that - the employee in question had a background check according to the airline, and I don't think that anyone is spending millions trying to suppress or criminalize the use of drones.

 

[Chip]

I agree with your point on aircraft security. But I thought your double standard referred to reporting of the news, not money spent making things safe...

Remember that I was only trying to give one answer to the broad question:

What is it with this current trend of responding to illegal/unsafe/immoral etc. actions, whether in the field of drones, politics or anything else by saying "But what about [insert random other illegal activity]..."?

My answer is its often because of a perceived double standard which people tend to dislike instinctively unless they are the beneficiary.

The gross negligence of Alaska Airline could have caused another 911 with deaths of thousands and destruction of an entire state's economy.

The guy who accidentally bopped someone on the head with his Phantom drone in downtown Seattle in 2015, got JAIL. The people in charge of security at Alaska and Seatac Airport? (Insert sound of crickets chirping)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[gnirtS]

Why shouldn't someone that injures someone by recklessly flying a drone into someones head get jail?

 

[Chip]

Why shouldn't someone that injures someone by recklessly flying a drone into someones head get jail?

Maybe they should. It would depend on the facts including the severity of the injury. What I am saying is that Alaska Airlines exposed far more people to far more serious injury a few weeks ago than any hobby drone flyer ever did and they will pay no penalty and face no consequence for it.

 

[gnirtS]

And you expect justice to work in under a week for a complex incident? It took a LOT longer than that for the drone idiot to actually get prosecuted and processed.

There's also the fact the Alaska guy is (i) dead so can't be prosecuted but actually hurt nobody whereas the drone moron (i) is alive and (ii) DID injure.

 

[Chip]

...There's also the fact the Alaska guy hurt nobody whereas the drone moron DID

Alaska guy destroyed $32 million aircraft. Person who got hit by drone in downtown Seattle reported no loss of consciousness and no cut requiring a stitch.