World Is Going Mad!

[Graham Lawrie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSiZ4mnbgv8

[Derek]

I saw that video, too. It actually bothered me so much, I took Bruce's facts from the CAA website and I wrote to TVNZ. I even got a BS reply, too. If you'd be interested in seeing my message to them and also seeing their reply, I can post it here.

[Graham Lawrie]

Yes Derek that would be great, Bruce has complained to the CAA:)

[Derek]

Ok Graham. Sorry it took me so long to get this posted for you. Here is my email to TVNZ News

On Monday, Feb. 24, 2020, a new article came from one of your reporters/journalists about a multirotor drone that was confiscated after being brought down by annoyed hikers that were throwing stones at it.

The article states that a drone operator was flying at Tongariro National Park. Now, there is a picture, in the article, that shows a "No Drone Flying Zone." If that is, indeed, true, then the drone operator is definitely at fault for ignoring the posted sign and flying in the park. The article goes on to state that a group of hikers began throwing stones at the drone and actually hit the drone, causing it to crash and a DOC ranger found it near Emerald Lakes and waited for the operator to come and retrieve it,

DOC Tongariro Operations Manager Connie Norgate said there are good reasons why drones aren't allowed in that area and she went on to say that there are a lot of helicopter operations that take place in the area almost daily and she went on to say that a flying drone puts the helicopters and their pilots at risk and the flying drone also disturbs other peoples privacy and and quiet enjoyment of the outdoors.

I have a couple of problems with this. Without a doubt, the drone operator is completely and totally at fault for flying in a "No Drone Fly Zone." Now, according to the "Civil Aviation Act 1990" of NZ Legislation, section 65F Strict liability for acts endangering safety, it states "A person commits an offence who acts in a manner that endangers an aircraft or any person in an aircraft." and according to your own CAA, a drone is defined as an "aircraft" and "every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000." Nevermind the fact that any and all "daily helicopter operations" would be much more noisy and "disturbing to other people’s privacy and quiet enjoyment of the outdoors" than any multirotor drone, what about the fact that nothing was reported about those hikers committing a crime that is punishable by jail time or a fine up to $10,000?

I'm sorry, but this article is completely focused on the wrong target. The drone operator broke a rule.....a simple rule. Those hikers committed a crime and Mrs Connie Norgate completely ignored that fact and chose to attack the drone operator and the rc drone community.

Please consider ALL the facts before you publish a story because this is a simple case of yet another media source writing yet another fictitious story in an effort to attack the drone community and make drones out to be "the bad guy." Although this story reports that a flying drone puts manned aircraft (the above mentioned helicopter and it's pilots) at risk, I'd like you to know that there has never been a confirmed case of loss of a persons life due to a collision between manned aircraft and a drone. There are hundreds of confirmed cases of mid air collisions between manned air craft and another manned aircraft every year.

Thank you for your time!

About 4 hours later, I get this reply:

There was no intention to attack drone operators per se and the reaction from the hikers and DOC I would presume in your words the story target stems from if not for A then there would be no B principle.

Cheers

Tony

So, basically, what he's saying is that if the drone operator hadn't been flying in the "No Drone Zone" (the park) the hikers wouldn't have had a drone to throw rocks at. Now, that statement is true but the hikers don't have the right to attack a drone like this....in my opinion.