Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
Marree’s one of many good examples of why Part 175 is an over-kill. I guarantee that Marree’s actual location and actual elevation won’t change much, whether or not those details appear in AIP. If some ‘criminal’ told Airservices that the elevation of Marree is 1,164’ rather than the currently-published 164’, and the erroneous 1,164’ were published in AIP, do you reckon it would rain aluminium? Would you keep trying to land on a non-existent runway at 1,164’ that you can see 1,000’ below you until you ran out of fuel, or would you land on the runway?
I’d probably land on the runway...
What would an autonomous drone do? Computers are typically fairly bad at situational awareness, and they're going to need reliable ground and obstacle data. Who is going to pay for providing that? The answer might determine whether autonomous flying drone service is ever going to be a profitable commercial concern. (note also that once you have liable data providers in place, the next step can be extending he amount of data that needs to provided)
Some people have wondered why the regulation does not mention if the information is correct at all. If you can be held criminally liable, you're open to a civil lawsuit recovering damages if something actually happens. That's probably why the person responsible must be a senior manager: otherwise the organisation might escape liability.