It's more refined than these "chunk"-sized columns, but even if we concede that the risk is overall "medium", as you point out the aviation industry shouldn't ignore it. But that's not the issue. The issue is what should the rest of the world do? Should aviators and airports take steps to mitigate the risks to their aircraft (such as detection technologies, flight protocols, observers, etc.)? Absolutely. Should the rest of the world enact restrictions to lower the level of risk to the aviation industry and yet stifle another? I'm not so sure.
That's the real crux of the argument. The way the world is going is not circling the existing rules and laws against endangering aviation, but rather is zeroing in on an industry that thus far, has not shown itself to be a malignant force, and deeming it critical to mandate ever-tightening controls and restrictions on that industry without data or scientifically-based determinations/evidence demonstrating the need to curtail their behaviors. Based purely on supposition. As an aviation safety person, I'm fully ensconced in SMS (we won't elaborate on that), that dictates a proactive approach to safety, rather than a reactive approach. However, SMS is also a data-driven approach and constantly reevaluating risk management based on existing data. That's why I bristle at the speculation and worry focused on potential occurrences, rather than based on existing and definitive data in-hand.
I hope I wasn't ranting about those types of things. I tried to stick to the facts and the true risks. But, I will point out, the issue of "bringing down an aircraft" is an important one, as it delineates the difference between a societal cost (loss of life, etc) in the case where an aircraft crashes, or simply the financial costs to an airline that incurs damage due to a strike. For the former, it is our duty and imperative as a society and nation to help prevent such occurrences from happening. For the latter, it really is the duty (or motivation) of the private sector, in particular the airlines and/or the airports, to mitigate those costs/risks. If there is a belief that a drone could bring down a commercial airliner, then I would argue that it is absolutely mandatory to impose controls in order to prevent such an incident. If the belief is that it is highly unlikely or extremely improbable, then there isn't much of a social requirement to prevent such occurrences (even if there is a financial cost).
By whatever means necessary? Absolutely not. As I have mentioned, "whatever means necessary" could be easily accomplished. Ban the use of drones and jail anyone utilizing/manufacturing them. Case closed. That solves the drone strike potential pretty much in one fell swoop (with some criminal outliers possible). But that would end up killing a market estimated to be worth $100 billion in the next few years.
Let's put it this way: should we impose terminal restrictions on the laser pointer industry because of their inherent risk to aircraft? I think we can all agree that they are certainly a danger to aviation and have had far more provable incidences of endangering aircraft in the past several years.
Not that it's even a 1$billion industry but imagine mandating that every user of every laser pointer in the US either gets a laser pointer license (from the FCC... after minimally one week of demanding courses/instruction and extensive examinations) or only uses it in the comfort of his/her home or only for "recreational" purposes in playing with their cat. No license, no use of a laser pointer if it is even remotely or tangentially related to earning money. Want to use one during a conference speech? Not without a license from the FCC. Want to use one to point out the locations of a house that you're inspecting to show someone where heat is escaping from the roof? Not a chance. At least not without the license from the FCC. And if that house was within 5 miles of an airport, you would have to contact the FCC and get their permission to use your laser pointer more than 90 days in advance. And you'd have to describe exactly how you were going to use your laser pointer. When and for how long, etc.
And for all other laser pointers, we're also going to mandate that they can't be turned on if they are located anywhere near an airport. Do you want to use a leveling laser while constructing your house 4 miles from the perimeter of JFK airport? No way. Even if it's inside and even if you acknowledge that you won't be using it for nefarious purposes. It won't even turn on. Wanna give a speech at a hotel conference center near the airport? Nope. Not gonna happen. The little GPS inside the laser pointer is going to communicate with the federal government or with a foreign company that manufactured it, and it's going to shut down on its own. It may even, in the future, report you to the authorities if you attempted to operate it.
As absurd as this scenario that I proffered would be, I would argue that there is little difference from what is happening today to the UAS industry. There are probably millions more laser pointers than drones out there in the world. They are also infinitely cheaper to acquire and operate. There have been dozens if not hundreds of verifiable and confirmed cases of "attacks" on aircraft by idiot users. Not so with the UAS industry. We could ban laser pointers as well, without a major hit to a significant sector of the economy. But we don't.
But put a spinning prop on that laser pointer and whoa... hold on there now. Suddenly we have to prohibit any functional or rational use of it no matter the cost.
Granted, this is "reductio ad absurdum" at its finest, but the overall point is what I'm trying to convey. If the data we have changes to reflect a different situation, then I would certainly change my position to support stronger mandates. Until then though, I do not believe that we should prevent something from happening "...by whatever means necessary".
