What really irks me about all this drone hysteria, just from things I've read since getting into it a few months back, is how all this is seen in the realms of possible issues, not based on specific incidents etc.
I mean how preempted is the NT statement "If a drone causes damage or harm, pilots generally do not have the correct insurances, or level of insurances, to adequately compensate those affected."
How many times has this happened, around a NT site or anywhere for that matter ?
We saw an incident where one come down on Sydney Harbour bridge a while back, probably hit a beam out from compass / gps loss of signal, it hit a car !
Was caught on the car dash cam and posted a lot around news services.
The point is, the whole bridge area is off limits to drones, not withstanding CASA rules about flying over people / vehicles etc, and the virtual total ban of drones over Sydney Harbour surroundings.
This is a CASA regulation, so why not just use current stringent existing laws, investigate and prosecute / fine to the max level to deter people who fly irresponsibly ?
(AFAIK, they didn't catch that operator.)
I know preventative (proactive) measures are best practice now in many scopes of safety, workplaces for example, but authorities seem all too quick to simply ban an activity "in case" something happens.
Another example . . . almost all National Parks in Australia have either a full ban, or very difficult or made to arduous to obtain permits to fly (state of Queensland is the exception), yet there are so many totally open areas that are very little visited, and with consideration you could fly anywhere with consideration and common sense and not be a nuisance to other park users or animals etc.
Footage of such areas from people in the public domain could increase interest in the regions so greatly, and allow people Worldwide to get an insight into these special places.
Bans are just the lazy, easy way out for authorities.
