York Police Drone Damages Plane At Buttonville Airport (ctvnews.ca) 104
A plane has major damage after a York Regional Police (YRP) drone struck the aircraft at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport earlier this month. CTV News reports: On Aug. 10, a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna plane was on a flight to the airport in Markham at an unknown time during the day. The small plane was about to land at the airport's runway when the pilot felt a jolt that "pushed them back on their seat," according to a report from Transport Canada issued this week. The pilot thought the plane hit a large bird and proceeded to land the plane, the report said. When the pilot exited the aircraft they saw a "major dent" on the left underside of the engine cowling and the airbox was also bent. No injuries were reported but the airplane suffered significant damage, including a propeller strike. A few hours after the incident, police confirmed that a YRP drone had struck the aircraft, according to the report.
Now with photo! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's basically the same story but including a photo [avweb.com] of the damaged aircraft:
Monty (Score:1)
Tis but a scratch
Drones are supposed to kill 100 ton airliners (Score:1)
Instantly make them fall out of the sky. Remember when they shut down Gatwick airport for days because somebody thought that they might have seen a drone?
How come a tiny C-172 could have survived with minor damage.
Me thinks the risk from small drones is greatly exaggerated. That said, flying them near airports is probably not wise.
Re: (Score:3)
And this was a Big drone 12 lbs, not your home quad copter about 2 lbs.
Re: Drones are supposed to kill 100 ton airliners (Score:5, Insightful)
An airliner will fall out of the sky if it attempts to go as slow as a cessnaâ(TM)s maximum speed. Kinetic energy increasing with v^2 means that drone would do way more damage to an airliner.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time you board an airliner, have a look at its skin. It is really thick and strong. A C175 is very light, and you could easily dent it with your fist.
So yes, the airliner lands at about twice the speed of a C-175 (140 kts vs 70 kts) but it is much, much stronger.
Re: Drones are supposed to kill 100 ton airliners (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bird can kill an engine, and they are much squishier.
Re: (Score:3)
"A bird can kill an engine, and they are much squishier."
Fortunately however, drones don't fly in flocks like Canadian Geese do (ask Chelsey Sullenberger, the pilot of UA flight 1549 how that works) and despite constant predictions of death and disaster, recreationally flown multirotor drones have never produced a single death in the more than 10 years that they have been a thing. That's right... not a single death, anywhere, ever!
But, every year, bird-strikes cause over US$400m worth of damage to aircraf
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that we don't need to worry about drones at all? Let them fly wherever?
FLT 1549 was exceptionally lucky. A differ
Re: (Score:2)
Recreationally flown multirotor drones have never produced a single death in the more than 10 years that they have been a thing.
There was a guy local that killed himself accidentally when he was practising with his very high power stunt drone and nearly decapitated himself when he screwed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your research... he was flying an RC helicopter -- that is *NOT* a the same as a multirotor drone.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we count nitromethane powered model helicopters as multi-rotor (main rotor and tail rotor) drones? I've definitely heard about at least one model helicopter owner who was flying it right in front of his face (a definite no-no) and was hit in the head by a rotor. It did not decapitate him, if I recall correctly, it just sliced off the top of his skull.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, didn't read far enough ahead. Looks like I was probably talking about the same incident. There's a long and fruitless arguments to be had by pedants on both sides about whether a remote controlled chopper with two rotors (main and tail) counts as a multi-rotor drone. I'm not really up for it right now though and frankly I don't even know which side to take (I lean towards classifying all such devices as drones and all with multiple rotors as multi-rotor, but it just does not seem important enough to ins
Take off and landing and Canadian geese (Score:2)
On take off, losing an engine the plane will still be OK. That is a requirement of all twin engined planes.
If the drone had hit the prop, it might have been more exciting, with the plane gliding in to land (assuming that it was flown on a reasonably steep approach like it should always be).
If the drone had hit the windshield, being a large 12 lbs drone, it might well have gone through. But then the pilot would probably have seen it and ducked.
As to FLT 1549, if you look at the actual flight path (Wikipe
Re: (Score:2)
Not from anyone with a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
> There's a long and fruitless arguments to be had by pedants on both sides about whether a remote controlled chopper with two rotors (main and tail) counts as a multi-rotor drone
There's no argument about that from anyone who has taken the very first hour of flight school, or otherwise has any clue whatsoever about aircraft.
I mean someone who has absolutely no idea, who has never seen a plane before, could say a certain cloud is kinda plain looking and it's in the air, so it's an airplane. But that's not what airplane means.
A helicopter (an aircraft with a rotating wing affixed to a cyclic) is not a multi-rotor (an aircraft with multiple fixed-position props which provide both lift and directional control through *rotation* as a prop). They are not only controlled in entirely different ways, they actually get most of their lift in completely different ways. They are as different as an airplane and a helicopter, if not more so.
You can glide an airplane or a helicopter, you can't glide a multi-rotor. An airplane and a helicopter have positive (or occasionally neutral) static stability, a multi-rotor has negative stability. In many ways, a helicopter is more closely related to an airplane than it is to a multi-rotor.
They fly completely differently. Two totally different mechanisms. Piloting them is COMPLETELY different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The above is what I'm talking about. You know what you're talking about, but you didn't account for all types of drones. That's where the pedantry comes in. You described a multi-rotor as "an aircraft with multiple fixed-position props which provide both lift and directional control through *rotation* as a prop". So where do tilt-rotor drones fit in? Are they not multi-rotor despite having multiple rotors and not being a helicopter or an airplane?
You're probably correct on this. Like I said though. Long and
Re: (Score:2)
There's a first time for everything and drone usage is going up, not down.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately however, drones don't fly in flocks like Canadian Geese do
..unless, for instance, you actually want to down an aircraft, in which case I think the term is 'swarm'.
Re: (Score:2)
> He kept gliding in the wrong direction a full 30 seconds after the bird strike.
I have never heard this criticism before. The cockpit had to gain situational awareness, they had to analyse the problem and come up with a plan of action. Which they did in an exemplary fashion. Return to the airport was never a realistic option, you even write "probably made it". "Probably not" is the more accepted conclusion.
Being a hero was never part of the decision making. You're just being a jerk about that.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your point.
> So where do tilt-rotor drones fit in? Are they not multi-rotor despite having multiple rotors and not being a helicopter or an airplane? ...
> Basically, you're using a strict definition that does not encompass all possibilities
There's no ambiguity if you know how they work. Tilt-rotor "drones" have three fixed horizontal props. They have no cyclic. When configured as a multi-rotor, they fly as a multi-rotor. Directional control is by changing the power ratio between the prop
Re: (Score:1)
Are you multi-engine rated?
Re: (Score:2)
what really counts as a machine gun
An automatic weapon (continuous fire) that is built in such a way to not have major heating issues when continuous fired. Usually, they are belt fed, but can also have magazine cartridges, though I believe they usually just contain a belt for easier transport.
Or about what counts as an assault rifle
Nothing. It is a mythical category of firearms that was made up for a law. It doesn't actually exist as a category of firearm, and is incredibly ill defined even in the former law. Functionally, everything that people call an assault weapon is no d
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find in the real world that plenty of people who know how things work can still disagree on terminology and notation. For example, I know how helicopters and quadcopters work, but I still did not initially fall in line with the consensus you're certain of. All of those arguments I listed are arguments I've seen again and again and again among people who are highly knowledgeable in their field.
People who have done their PHDs on the Tolkien can disagree on whether the Balrog had wings. For what
Re: (Score:2)
And yet your definitions deviate from the legal definition. Also with many historic machine guns that terrible overheating problems if continuously fired, etc., etc. My entire point was that whatever categorical lines you're drawing on things like this, there are going to be people who draw the lines in different places who know just as much about the subject as you do. Even one tiny little difference in where you draw the line can turn into a huge battle over the proper placement of some item.
I said there are two, this AND that (Score:2)
I said there are disagreements of opinion, AND their are disagreements from lack of knowledge. AND, meaning two different things.
I didn't say that all disagreements are due to lack of knowledge. In fact I said the opposite, that some disagreements are based on differences of informed opinion (and some are not).
Your post pointed out that there are differences of opinion, such as whether Pluto should be considered a planet. Yeah, that's the first phrase of my conjunction.
> (another big one for people to ar
Re: (Score:2)
But, every year, bird-strikes cause over US$400m worth of damage to aircraft and *do* produce loss of human life. I think this categorically proves that birds are the bigger danger and threat to the lives of people in planes.
Obviously we need Bird Control legislation.
You think I'm kidding, but on a serious note, actually airports do practice some bird control.
But mostly, pilots are just super-vigilant about birds on takeoff and landing (the most likely time you'll encounter them). Air Traffic Control makes a big point of warning about birds (as best as they know).
What might really help is if we could get the birds to obey ATC instuctions...
You have never flown an airplane (Score:2)
Have you? I recommend going down to your local airfield and giving it a go, just once or twice, not that expensive.
It is not some mystical experience.
The pilots instantly recognized that they had lost all power. Engine failure near take off is something that every pilot should have in the back of their minds. Practiced many times both in light aircraft and in simulators. You do not go get your basic license until you have shown that you can handle engine failure safely.
Did you actually have a look at
Re: (Score:2)
I said there are disagreements of opinion, AND their are disagreements from lack of knowledge. AND, meaning two different things.
I didn't say that all disagreements are due to lack of knowledge. In fact I said the opposite, that some disagreements are based on differences of informed opinion (and some are not).
I understand that, and I agree. However, you did specifically write: "There's no ambiguity if you know how they work." That does strongly imply that you think that anyone who disagrees is arguing from ignorance in this specific case.
Your post pointed out that there are differences of opinion, such as whether Pluto should be considered a planet. Yeah, that's the first phrase of my conjunction.
What you appear to have said is that "You can have arguments of *opinion*, like which is the best...". Ultimately, all disagreements are differences of opinion, otherwise they would not be disagreements. Even disagreements over facts are simply disagreement over peoples opinions
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for writing all of that.
Because you wrote so much great stuff, I'm not fully confident that I know precisely what your point is. You probably stated in clearly at one point and I forgot. If you feel Ike writing one more sentence, it would be cool to confirm what exactly your thesis is.
> "There's no ambiguity if you know how they work." That does strongly imply that you think that anyone who disagrees is arguing from ignorance in this specific case.
Yes, it does.
I suppose my point could be summed u
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for writing all of that.
Because you wrote so much great stuff, I'm not fully confident that I know precisely what your point is. You probably stated in clearly at one point and I forgot. If you feel Ike writing one more sentence, it would be cool to confirm what exactly your thesis is.
My original point was that I didn't want to get into a super long discussion about a relatively minor point of classification. :)
Really though, the point is about the nerd mentality that many of us share. We want to be informed, we want to understand, and we also tend to want to be _right_. So, we educate ourselves on the most authoritative sources we can, and we apply our best reasoning to find _the_ answer. The thing is, we're also aware that this is a universe of uncertainty, every fact is only known to
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks again.
We certainly do like to know the right answer, and to be right. Perhaps that's part of why we learn things. It may be that people who don't mind being uninformed about most things -- are uninformed about most things. They aren't nerds having intellectual discussions on Slashdot.
The last bit I mentioned about the universe of feelings was kinda changing the subject. I was just reminded of it by discussing the concept of being correct or incorrect.
> What I can say is that we have written around
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps merely because it's interesting to talk about things other than beer, sports, and politics. :)
Fair enough.
I generally agree with you on types of questions and definitions. They can be tricky though. For example, Taxonomy. Originally Linnaeus defined three kingdoms: Animal, Plant and Mineral. We now have six kindgoms, having dropped Mineral and added Protists, Fungi, Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. But things get misclassified and are later moved between kingdoms sometimes. Not to mention that we could have shadow biospheres on Earth where different versions of life have evolved that we don't even rec
Re: (Score:2)
> They can be tricky though. For example, Taxonomy. Originally Linnaeus defined three kingdoms
Oh absolutely that's why I put "describing nature" into a different class than pure mathematics. One is descriptive, the other prescriptive. Totally different things and if you get those two confused you're going to have problems.
We think the kingdoms we use are reasonably useful classifications of the organisms we know so far.
In the other hand, in classical arithmetic we KNOW that 1+1=2 because that's what plus
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the same symbol in C has a slightly different meaning. In most cases it means the same as it means in classical arithmetic, but it means something different when there is a carry to or past the high bit. That's not *describing* how something works in the real world, that's *declaring* how our minds shall think about it.
Sure. Classic example being assignment "=" vs.comparison. "=="
Guess why I don't believe that? :D
No really. At the time I was pretty tired. But that was nearly a week ago. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The airliner lands on its remaining engine(s). What happens if that drone hit the propeller of the Cessna?
Small airplanes experience bird strikes like that all the time. I suspect (but am really not sure) that a drone might be harder than a bird. But on the other hand, little airplanes also sometimes hit the hard parts of other airplanes (both large and small) and we know what happens there.
Usually what happens is that the little airplane continues to fly, or at least glide to a landing.
Assuming something (probably much bigger than a 10 lb drone) didn't chop a wing off or something. Your worst case scenario in
due diligence (Score:2)
We might need to reconvene the Mythbusters for that one, but I don't think their budget would cover it.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA budget for that sort of research has been gutted. Gingrich moved it to a separate line item of the budget and started the squeeze. That's why they had to just take Boeing's word for it that the 737 MAX was a safe aircraft, the Libertardians in Congress were sure that no corporation would ever knowingly lie.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/drone-hits-plane-wing-shears-off-video.html
https://udayton.edu/udri/news/18-09-13-risk-in-the-sky.php
Re: Drones are supposed to kill 100 ton airliners (Score:1)
Next time you board an airliner, have a look at its skin. It is really thick and strong.
Like your head?
Re: (Score:2)
Next time you board an airliner, have a look at its skin. It is really thick and strong.
Like your head?
BOOM! Well played sir, well played indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Really, because it looks like thin sheets of metal to me. Jumbo jets are primarily made to be as light as possible and that means making the metal as thin as they can get away with.
I doubt a drone would cause one to crash but it could probably wreck an engine.
Re: (Score:2)
I would encourage you to take a tour of the Boeing factory the next time you're in Seattle (free IIRC, and very interesting). They have a cross section of a retired airliner there, "thick and strong" are absolutely NOT the words I would use to describe the skin of any jumbo jet.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that if 1mm meets your definition of "really thick", then yes.
Airliners are designed to be as light as possible whilst achieving the strength necessary to withstand forces encountered during normal operations.
Re: (Score:2)
An airliner will fall out of the sky if it attempts to go as slow as a cessna's maximum speed.
Cessna makes a lot of different aircraft, including their "Citation X", which is the fastest business jet in the world. It goes much faster than any airliner. The next big step down would be their "Caravan" turboprops, which are single-engine propeller fixed-gear (landing gear doesn't retract) airplanes that typically carry 4-12 people. That cruises at 186 knots. The classic "little airplane" that you may be thinking of from 1956 (still in production) is the ubiquitous "Cessna 172" aka "Skyhawk". That is a
Re: (Score:2)
And this was a Big drone 12 lbs, not your home quad copter about 2 lbs.
Exactly. Not the local bulk-quadcopters, mind you, I'm talking about the big Corellian drones now.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not minor.
Had that drone been 3-4 feet higher, right through the windshield.
Re: (Score:2)
How come a tiny C-172 could have survived with minor damage.
How come if I shoot you in the leg with a shotgun you survive, but if I shoot you in the head with a 9mm you die? It's just a gunshot right shouldn't the effect be the same for every case?
This pilot is hugely lucky the drone didn't hit half a meter higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Now with photo! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for that. I read the linked article and thought "meh, didn't seem like it was that bad...."
Now I want to see the Drone's damage!
Yo Grark
Re: (Score:2)
The police union say the small plane viciously assaulted the PD drone and compensation for physical damaged and hurt feelings should be paid.
Big drone, and doubly illegal (Score:3)
That's a big drone to cause that damage. That's not the little hobby ones that people fly from the backyard.
I notice the police broke at least two laws with that flight. They were flying both too close to the airport without getting permission, and too high.
Re: (Score:3)
I notice the police broke at least two laws with that flight.
Yeah, but who's gonna arrest them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The police have issued an official statement regarding the incident:
"Rules are for thee and not for me"
Film at eleven... :-)
Don't F with the feds (Score:2)
I don't know about Canada, but in the US you don't mess around with the feds, even if you're a city cop.
The TCCA (FAA) is going to be on this. That should make the cops nervous.
Re: (Score:1)
I bet there's gonna be some budget re-adjustments... and a new order for toilet paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely though, they will just get a fine. The fine will then be paid by the city, who basically have almost no authority over the police department that could effect change.
Re: Don't F with the feds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, not the US. Of course, in the US the police chief generally reports to the Mayor as well and in many cases can technically fire the police chief. However the politics of actually correcting anything wrong in the police department are complex and it often seems to be nearly impossible in some places to achieve any change. Officers guilty of wrongdoing often seem to be covered by an extremely broad interpretation of qualified immunity Then there's the situation with Sheriffs, which is also complic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they should get away with a fine. Just that most likely they will.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed here on Slashdot some people are incapable of distinguishing what they want from what is. It comes up every time I post what the law is on a subject. Somebody just can't understand that the is written down, it's a thing that exists outside their own head. They get really upset when I won't agree that the law *is* what they *want* it to be, screaming "so you think people should be able to just ...!?"
Re: Big drone, and doubly illegal (Score:2)
Re:Big drone, and doubly illegal (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't end well when pigs fly.
Re:Now with photo! (Score:4, Informative)
This is not the first time a police drone has collided with a manned aircraft in Canada. A year or so ago, the RCMP flew one of their own large drones into an RCMP helicopter producing $200K worth of damage.
This video (from last Wednesday) was one of the first reports on the latest incident and provides context with the previous one: Drone News: Canadian police hit another manned aircraft with a drone [youtube.com]
And they say that recreational drones are a danger to manned aviation -- it seems... not as much as police drones are.
The death toll from the RECREATIONAL use of multirotor drones remains at zero, making it the safest arm of aviation there has ever been -- yet regulators keep piling on new rules and regulations as if hundreds of people were dying every day.
There are rules about done use (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Doggon bad apples ruin it for all (Score:3)
Now they'll pass gazillion laws against drones.
Because police who break the law will follow it (Score:4, Interesting)
> Now they'll pass gazillion laws against drones.
Yep. Specifically they'll pass a bunch of laws against little toy hobby drones. Because sure, they police broke at least two existing laws this time, with their much larger drone, but if you pass ANOTHER law they'll follow that one.
Re: (Score:2)
It works for gun control...
The next law is sure to stop all those people using firearms to break the law, I am sure of it!
Re:Doggon bad apples ruin it for all (Score:5, Informative)
There are already a gazillion laws against drones.
The latest thing they want is to have all drones and RC model aircraft or helicopters, fitted with broadcast Remote ID. Effectively they want each craft broadcasting its identity, location, altitude and the position of the pilot on the ground below.
The irony of this is that in class G airspace, manned aircraft don't require any such broadcasting transponder.
So... build an ulralight manned aircraft and you can fly it without training, without certification, without registration and without a transponder in Class G airspace.
However... build a small, 9 ounce model of the same craft and you will need to pass an online exam, register and fit a broadcast ID transponder to that craft.
Every year, too many people die in ultralight (and other) manned aircraft crashes but NOBDY has EVER died as the result of the recreational use of multirotor drones -- in the entire history of the planet.
I think that from this we can see these regulations are *not* about safety but about control and about clearing the 0-400ft section of airspace for commercial operations. The mighty dollar rules again and a hobby gets decimated in the process :-(
Re: (Score:2)
People are likely to behave much more responsibly when their life is on the line. The guy in the ultralight is much less likely to risk a collision on an illegal airport flyover than an unmanned done pilot who is only risking $100.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but there are a lot of tombstones that testify to the "skin in the game" claim.
If "skin in the game" was true then we would not see pilots doing reckless and dangerous things with their aircraft -- but they do and as a result, people die every year.
Not one single death from the recreational use of multirotor drones... anywhere... ever, however.
"skin in the game" is a useless platitude invented by those who want try and spin a narrative that doesn't match the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
If "skin in the game" was true then we would not see pilots doing reckless and dangerous things with their aircraft
That argument doesn't make sense, unless you were refuting the claim that pilots never do anything risky. I don't think that was the claim. You also omitted the numerical background which makes your facts trivial: pilots are intrinsically piloting near a plane, and drone operators seldom are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drones are a lot smaller than ultralights and a lot more difficult to see - nearly impossible in an airplane approaching a runway at ~100mph, with the pilot concentrating on landing. I have no problem with drones certified to be no more damaging than birds being allowed to operate without transponders.
The Police broke the law. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Still no - they broke multiple laws (Score:2)
They were flying both too close to the airport AND too high under Canadian regulations too.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this thing even able to go 16k feet then?
Thanks. 17 times the size of a hobby drone (Score:2)
Thanks for that. Hobby drones generally stay under 250 grams based on US regulations, so this thing is 17 times the weight. Makes sense. That damage looked far too severe for what most people think of when you say "drone".
Re: The Police broke the law. (Score:2)
Sorry, I see this is a Canada issue. Oh, Canada.
Are hunter drones coming? (Score:2)
This the second time that a police has done this.. (Score:2)
A FLIR SkyRanger R60 Multi-roter UAV flown by the RCMP collided with an RCMP Helicopter last year (2020) in February. They are either flying these UAVs beyond their line of sight, or the SkyRanger R60 is really a two operator (one to fly, one to monitor the FLIR) UAV, but they only had one person do both.
https://globalnews.ca/news/707... [globalnews.ca]
I Predict ... (Score:2)
I predict no one will go to jail . . .
Re: (Score:1)
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!
The statistical likelihood? (Score:2)
I find it outrageous that the two aircraft managed to meet in mid-air. One is already pretty small, and the other is tiny, compared to the shear amount of volume that makes up airspace above the ground. That is three dimensions. What are the odds? Were they on perpendicular or parallel trajectories?
Drone operator should be at fault, because any surveillance drone ought to easily out-maneuver any type of airplane. But, that could be analogous to suggesting, in a tractor-trailer vs. motorcyclist scena
Re: (Score:2)
You could build that using ADS-B [wikipedia.org]. This is the new transponder-like system being deployed on aircraft - both commercial and private light planes - that transmits the craft's position and velocity every second.
There are already ADS-Bin devices on aircraft that detect collision risks by receiving nearby ADS-Bout transmissions, comparing them to its own position and velocity and warning the pilot - or even automatically overriding the controls or autopilot settings to dodge an impending collision by suitable w
Re: (Score:1)
The drone operator is clearly at fault. Should be charged with attempted murder. He was in a known pattern for the airport and he had better know that he's not to operate a drone there. They go over that in class. It's illegal. He could have killed them. The operator needs to do significant jail time. Otherwise, other cops won't care either. They're not the ones in the plane after all.
yet again... (Score:2)
government restricts, limits, and/or bans something in civilian hands with the claim that this is for "the public good", and the assertion that private people with these capabilities might harm each other or the government... and then the government is the one to use the banned/limited/restricted thing in harming civilians.
This is not the aberation it appears to be; it's standard operating procedure [not a conspiracy - no assertion this is planned]. Government tends to be far too worried about the nature of
Re: (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.
Is your reading comprehension so insanely low that I need to spell it out for you?
Here goes:
1. Was government operating a drone with more mass than it would have allowed YOU to operate? [hint: YES]
2. Was government operating a drone in a place where it would have banned YOU from operating one? [hint: YES]
3. Does government prohibit YOU from doing these things because it claims YOU just MIGHT cause harm if YOU were allowed to? [hint: YES]
4. Did government do
Re: (Score:2)