You guys really don't even begin to comprehend the logical disconnect in your position. I suspect that you are actually hoping that it will happen, just to prove that your imaginary fears are warranted.
With respect, pretty much every drone regulation to date has so far been based on
imaginary fears.
Of the bazillion recreational and commercial drones sold around the world, how many actual deaths have resulted? Every sensationalized media account of a "near-miss" typically adds some superfluous reference to, "
imagine what might have happened if...", while downplaying the fact that a "near-miss" actually means that nothing happened.
For example, this article describes a recent near-miss with a Scottish helicopter.
"AN AIR AMBULANCE flying over Kelty
only narrowly avoided disaster as a drone came within 300 feet of a
potential crisis in the sky."
www.centralfifetimes.com/news/19431002.kelty-uk-airprox-board-investigation-finds-drone-almost-hit-air-ambulance-flying-fife/
I'm not saying it's impossible for there someday to be an actual disaster. I'm just saying every time a pilot merely
sees a drone (or sees a seagull), it's always reported as a potential
crisis and a narrowly avoided
disaster. As a direct result of the public pressure created by this style of reporting we have an ever increasing amount of regulations, unsupported by any actual data to demonstrate the real level of risk.
The article quotes the Airprox report as saying, "a quadcopter-type drone which passed down the right-hand side of the aircraft at between 100m and 150m distance, and only slightly below their level..." 100m-150m =
328ft-492ft.
Yet, typically, the article states the "drone came
within 300ft of a potential crisis." The headline could have more accurately said, "A drone passed as much as
500ft away and
below a helicopter, and the pilot never even saw it."
Unusual for this type of reporting, the very last line in the article generously includes this statement,
"In determination, the report stated: "The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where
although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk. "
Nonetheless, despite the fact that the drone may have been as far as 150m(492ft) away and below the helicopter and declared as
no risk, it was still reported as a potential crisis and narrowly avoided disaster.
I suspect that (you) [the media] are actually hoping that it will happen, just to prove that (your) [their] imaginary fears are warranted.
I also suspect that the regulatory agencies are desperately hoping that it
never happens, but in the meantime let's promulgate reams of complicated regulations so our butts are safely covered if it eventually ever does happen.
fox8.com
