Your claim that you "know pilots think they are all knowing, all seeing entities" is ridiculous, so I'll leave it alone, other than to state that this has nothing to do with pilots.
It was a joke... It seems that you are a pilot of some type but are still unaware of the stereotype that pilots consider themselves "special". Heck, some of the best "pilots think they're God" jokes come from pilots themselves (the rest come from flight attendants and mechanics). Lighten up. No one is trying to offend pilots here. The point is only that they can (and do) make mistakes. And many pilots (and members of the media and public) nowadays are "drone" conscious, and every moving object in the air caught out of the corner of one's eye must be a drone. So despite the fact that the immediate reaction of anyone these days seems to be "it was a drone", I hesitate to come to that conclusion without some further evidence. And I simply posed the question about how the pilots, in those environmental conditions, could positively identify a drone. Or is that not a legitimate question?
Regarding the rest of your post, there is no way for local authorities to have any idea how much battery life is available.
Well, they do have Google don't they? If I type in "maximum flight time drone" into a Google search, the 1st result I get is this:
Top 10 Drones with Longest Flight Time for 2017
which lists the top 10 drones with long flight times in 2017, showing the longest with 30 minutes and number 10 at 22 minutes. What I'm saying is that if they have a protocol in place for responding to the presence of a drone (shutting down the airfield), then they should have some information and education to back up their designated response. If they don't have a SOP in place, then this type of response is simply "on the fly" and there's no place for shutting down an entire airfield on such a whim.
There is also know way for them to determine what intentions someone who is willingly flying that close to an airport has.
I'd agree. But why would one automatically assume that the operator had ill intentions? Isn't it more likely that it's some idiot or novice that decided to fly somewhere they shouldn't? Operating a drone (even in the wrong place) without intentionally attacking a plane (the stories didn't mention that behavior) is far different than intentionally "lazing" an aircraft. Even then I wouldn't consider it terrorism, as you're suggesting. But either way, my point is still valid. People "lazing" an aircraft are
intentionally doing it (we know this because it would be bizarre to accidentally shine a laser pointer at an aircraft on approach at night) and yet, even with this intentional "attack" on an aircraft, we don't shut down the airfield and divert flights for 2 hours. Why would we do it for a drone?
If you were the authority, you clearly would know exactly how to proceed. The Brazilians are extremely cautious managers of their airspace, moreso since they were responsible for a midair years ago
You'd be much smarter.
I didn't say I'm smarter. But rational risk analysis and risk mitigation in aviation is important. If this response to the mere sighting of a drone (confirmed or otherwise) was enacted each time any pilot saw a drone, civil aviation would come to a screeching halt. I'm suggesting that this reaction was way overblown and maybe we should think about this before doing the same thing the next time a drone is spotted anywhere near an airfield.
I admire the Brasilians and their risk mitigation efforts. I routinely work with the folks from CENIPA and ANAC and have even helped them during the past several years in their risk mitigation analysis and rule-making. But though they are ahead of the game in some areas, they are far behind in others. And this reaction was not a national protocol enacted by any aviation authority. It was simply a knee-jerk reaction by airport officials.
Having been "lazed," including at Guarulhos,a few miles from this place, and having avoided free air balloons there, I would be more worried about hitting a drone.
Do you believe that lasers and hot air balloons pose less of a risk to aviation than drones do? If so, I'd like to see your data. Risk mitigation should be determined by scientifically-based safety data, not public opinion or perceived threats. I've made this argument in another long-winded thread on this forum, but instead of restating it, I'll simply link to it and you can read for yourself:
Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"
Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"
The bottom line is that the data currently shows that drones pose almost no risk to aviation and even if the potential risk is assumed, the actions taken should still be proportionate to the actual risk to aviation (not some perceived threat coming from entities that haven't carefully examined the facts).
Anyway, it seems you are the one who seems to be "all knowing."
Again, I never claimed to be. But I do know more than nothing. And I have an opinion. And data. And like you, I am simply trying to express my opinion (and based on the facts as I know them). Aviation safety is my profession and I spend
a lot of my time working through these very types of issues. Engaging in dialog is a good thing and I endeavor to avoid the reactionary steps taken by airport officials in just such circumstances. Shutting down airports after the sighting of a singular drone does no one any good. It doesn't make the public/passengers appreciate such efforts. They may tolerate it once or twice but if it was routine, the outrage would be palpable. It doesn't do well for drone operators either. It also doesn't help pilots or even airport officials address the real aviation risks in an appropriate manner.
By the way, it's "no way" for them to determine, not "know way" for them to determine.
