PPRuNe Forums - Drones Fly into trouble

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Drones Fly into trouble (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/611519-drones-fly-into-trouble.html)

Drones Fly into trouble

Did anyone read the letter in today's Telegraph (26th Jul)? Did you understand it?

It was signed off by the All Party Group on Drones. It says Britain risks acting unlawfully if we share assets with Drone Partners.

It seems a load of waffle and different from any other form of cooperation.

Didn't see the letter, but report available here:

http://appgdrones.org.uk/wp-content/...lInOne_v25.pdf

Thank you, the executive summary makes more sense than the letter. Who ever drafted it cut it too much.

The film Eye in the Sky captured the dilemma in an entertaining and simple way.

Not the only drones getting in to trouble...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alj...155103669.html

BV

What a load of tripe, is this really the best use of this lot to produce this? It simoly fails to grasp the fact that the Rules of Engagement (RoE) are no different for RPAS than they are for manned aircraft. If the target meets RoE then why does it matter if it is launched from a manned or unmanned aircraft? There is absolutely no difference as these aircraft are not automated or autonomous in any way and there is always a human pulling the trigger just like a gun or cannon on a tank or ship or a torpedo or missile from a sub.

There is some plainly ridiculous hand-wringing in here as well. The worst I have read so far is:

Quote:

In 2015, a UK drone killed two British citizens - Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin - in Syria without Parliament’s approval. Speaking before the House of Commons, the Prime Minister admitted that the strike marked “a new departure” and that “this [was] the first time ... that a British asset has been used to conduct a strike in a country where we are not involved in a war.”7 The Government has denied that this strike signified a new policy of ‘targeted killing’, though this position continues to be challenged.

It makes no difference if they are British or not. It makes no difference if it was from a RPAS (or drone if you must) or not. What really matters is whether the strike met the RoE. Indeed this whole alarmist report should be exactly on that, the RoE and the avoidance of CIVCAS, rather than the use of RPAS. That would be a useful exercise rather than the comic that has been produced.

Harrrrumph...

A very blinkered and poorly researched report that clearly does not understand RPAS operations or the basics of ROE & LOAC. Most of the questions they have asked are already answered elsewhere, albeit the committee may not be privy to those answers and for good reason.