Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Rugby ball hits manned aircraft

It's been a while since I commented on drones but an event last week is something well worthy of a rant.

We've been constantly warned for over a decade now that "it's only a matter of time' before a drone hits a manned aircraft and brings it down with inevitable loss of life.

Despite the monotonous regularity with which this warning is rolled out by the media, the commercial aviation industry and regulators, the reality is that this simply has not happened.

The reality of the universe is that "it's only a matter of time" before anything that *can* happen *will* happen so I guess those doomsayers are right in regards to drones -- but what constitutes an acceptable amount of "time"?

I've always argued that many of our ball-sports are far more dangerous than tiny hobby drones but those claims have always fallen on deaf ears. Events of the past week however, lend huge support to my assertions.

In the context of this discussion, it should be remembered that we can't eliminate all risk, no matter how many rules and regulations we pass and no matter how severe and harsh the penalties for breaking those rules might be.

So, rather than attempting the impossible (eliminating risk) we simply try to reduce it to what is considered an "acceptable" level.

What is "acceptable" is a highly variable thing however.

For example, hundreds of people die on NZ's roads every year as the result of crashes. Despite this, we don't see significant changes being made to our road rules in an order to reduce this death-toll to a lower number. We simply accept that "driving is dangerous" and get on with it.

Let's compare that situation to the flying of drones and RC model aircraft...

Despite the dire warnings I mentioned earlier, there has not been a single evidenced incident where a lightweight recreational drone has brought down a manned aircraft -- let alone caused a death in doing so.

Yet, despite this perfect record -- regulators are still seeking to toughen up the rules that apply to these small, proven safe hobby drones. There's a move afoot now to align NZ's drone rules to be 100 percent compliant with the ICAO standard that is recognised by a number of other countries.

Do we need more restrictive rules -- given the perfect record of safety?

I do not believe we do.

Not a single death or significant injury in the entire history of recreational drone flying in New Zealand -- meanwhile in the same time, thousands die on the roads, hundreds die in manned aicraft crashes and almost every other "adventure" pastime has also resulted in fatalities.

So why is it that we're so hell-bent on solving the problem that doesn't exist -- the risk from drones?

The reason I'm making this argument today is because of this event that occurred over two years ago but which has only just made the headlines.

Yes, unlikely as it might seem, a light aircraft was hit by a rugby ball as it was coming in to land at Queenstown airport. Not a drone... a rugby ball.

So now we have hard evidence that undeniably proves that a light aircraft in New Zealand is more likely to be struck by a 400g+ rugby ball than by a lightweight sub250g recreationally flown drone.

Gosh... once again, my predictions, unlikely as they might seem, appear to have been found to be right on the money. I've long argued that a rugby ball is *far* more dangerous than a small lightweight drone or RC model aircraft -- and here's the evidence.

The NZ regulations prohibit the flying of even the smallest drone or model aircraft within 4Km of any airfield -- apparently it's just too dangerous, despite zero instances of actual collisions or damage occuring.

Now we have a clearly documented instance of a rugby ball hitting an aircraft as it was landing -- so will we introduce regulations based on proven risk that can prevent this sort of thing happening again? I mean, if it can happen once it can surely happen again unless the proven risk is managed -- right?

Well apparently not, it seems the risk of a rugby ball hitting a manned aircraft (despite this event) is still deemed to be too small to worry about. Yet the risk of a tiny drone doing the same (which has NEVER happened) must be regulated further as rules are updated.

The sole risk management to deal with these rugby-ball vs aircraft incidents is apparently that people are told "not to kick balls too high due to low-flying aircraft".

So, in light of this, why can't NZ's drone rules be updated to match those of countries such as Australia which allow small drones to be flown near airports so long as the flyer of the drone makes sure not to endanger any aircraft by landing if a plane or helicopter is taking off or landing? In effect, they are rules that say "just be careful" and rely on people to make sensible decisions.

Are we saying that your average rugby player is a more sensible, responsible person than the person who's forked out hundreds of dollars for a drone?

It's also highly damning of the media that this story didn't make the news until almost three years after it happened and that everyone seems satisfied with the "just be careful" approach to managing the proven danger. If that had been a tiny drone that struck the aircraft I think the reports would have been far less charitable or forgiving.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font