Originally Posted by
angels
It seems there is a minority on here who will only agree that drones represent a danger when an AAIB is looking at a pile of smoking metal and human remains.
I suspect the size of that minority might be limited to yourself.
Is it not obvious that anything being ingested into a jet engine, smashing into a cockpit, stabiliser etc represents a danger?
Indeed. All that is being suggested is that there are currently any number of things that can pose very similar risks which we currently deem as acceptable risks, so what is so special about "drones"? We have a non-zero number of pilots who fly while drunk, constituting a clear safety risk, but we have yet to require blood-alcohol tests on all aircrew prior to boarding every flight. We have a non-zero risk of counterfeit parts in the supply chain, but we have yet to prohibit the procuremnt of aircraft parts from anyone but the OEM. We have the proven issue of birdstrike, yet the USA did not embark or a campaign of avian genocide after Sullenberger's famous aquatic demonstration.
We only need the holes in the cheese to line up once -- which despite the odds against they sometimes do -- for there to be a tragedy.
The point is that society clearly deems is acceptable for the holes to line up occasionally - why the focus on drones? Is it an acceptable alternative to thinking?
PDR