Last January 3, 2024, a passenger plant in the United Kingdom narrowly came close to colliding with a drone flying 24 times the allowed legal height for the remotely piloted device.
The British Airways flight from Athens, Greece to London’s Heathrow Airport was flying at more than 250 mph (400 kph) at a height of 9,600 feet (2,926 meters) when the pilots spotted the drone passing five (5) feet over their wing and just 30 feet from the cockpit.
The report said the drone operator was probably trying to get interesting footage of the Airbus A321 airliner in mid-air but unaware that the drone, flying at that height, could cause potentially catastrophic damage by getting sucked into a jet engine or breaking a windscreen.
If the operator was caught, he could have been jailed for up to five years for endangering aircraft, the report stated.
This is one of the main reasons PBM Joselito Alberto is pushing the approval of the Catanduanes Drone Operation Regulations Ordinance now pending before the Committee on Public Safety and Peace and Order chaired by PBM Robert Fernandez.
It mandates, among others, that no drone shall be flown outside the controller’s visual line of sight, higher than 120 meters (400 feet) above ground level, at a lateral distance of 30 meters from vehicles and members of the public, closer than 10 kilometers from the airport or active helipads, and at a distance of more than 500 meters from the controller’s location.
If approved, the ordinance would impose fines and penalties of as much as P5,000 or imprisonment of one week to one month or both at the discretion of the Court for violations of its provisions, with the drone to be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the provincial government.
The penalties, of course, are too light compared to what a thickheaded and irresponsible operator would face if his drone actually caused a passenger plane to fall out of the sky and crash on the populated area close to the Virac airport.
The Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) has its own regulations governing the use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), following concerns that a number of drone owners and operators have limited knowledge and understanding of the proper use of these devices, the security and safety risks it poses, and their possible interference with commercial air traffic.
As a drone enthusiast pointed out, the 10-kilometer “no fly zone” radius around the airport is too vast and should be liberally applied, considering that it has only one commercial flight arriving at 9:25 AM and taking off at 9:55 AM.
Only one other aircraft – a private plane that takes off from Daraga Airport – regularly flies to the island every Monday and leaves sometime later in the day or the following morning.
Today’s camera-equipped drones, especially the branded and known ones, are equipped with the so-called “geofencing” that limits its operation within a certain distance from an airport.
While these same drones have a default setting of 120 meters (400 feet), the operator can easily adjust the maximum altitude setting to 500 meters (1,640 feet).
An utterly stupid guy could be tempted to fly that same drone type somewhere along the lengthy glide path that a plane takes as it steadily drops in height above Balite beach in coming down for the landing a few hundred meters from Sto. Domingo river.
And the consequence could be tragic and unforgivable.
Of course, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan should surely take into consideration the use of drones in marketing on social media and other platforms the many tourist attractions of the Happy Island.
Ditto the fact that CAAP as well as the law enforcement agencies concerned do not even have the capacity and the appropriate equipment to catch such illegally flown drones, much less apprehend the owner or operator.
Clearly, there is a need for the local government to regulate the operation of drones, commercial or otherwise, especially with regards to helping CAAP ensure that the flying of drones does not compromise aviation and public safety.