No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:30 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/0602.shtml

So CAA is not averse to engaging in a little deceit and disinformation when it suits them?

Is this acceptable behaviour from a government agency charged with preserving the safety of the national airspace and those beneath it?

Does this not call into question the objectivity and ability to make fair and reasonable regulation?

Should there be an investigation into exactly why this campaign of misinformation is in place and why it is allowed to continue?

You tell me.

Are you aware of any other government regulatory agencies that have engaged in similar hype and disinformation campaigns, possibly under commercial pressure from other industries?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2681
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby Screw » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:18 am

To inflict that kind of damage it would have taken something with more mass than the so-called drone. Or conversely a hell of a lot more speed by the drone.

As to what the CAA says, well you would have to take that up with them. Odd I say, really odd!
Last edited by Screw on Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Screw
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 3:52 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:30 am

CAA have acknowledged that the pictures could have been "staged"... but they don't state that in the presentation -- only when they were later challenged as to the veracity of the images.

Surely we should expect a higher level of honesty and integrity from a government-appointed regulatory authority?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2681
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby roygbiv » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:08 am

The picture is so obviously not factual, it goes without saying but possibly taken out of context ie. they wanted to make a point of drone that can collide with registered aircraft. What was the subject of the presentation, who were the audience, what was the message. I would take a guess that CAA are just trying to protect their own turf and that is all airspace. Whereas they should be publicising the existing rules ie controlled airspace, minimum altitude of registered aircraft over differing areas. If all drone operators are educated then the two would not meet. Instead CAA will be fighting a losing battle as off-the-shelf drones are purchased and variety of uses/functions for them increase.
User avatar
roygbiv
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:25 am

But roy... isn't that kind of like the Iraq situation where world-leaders thought it was okay to bullshit about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction because they figured that the ends justified the means?

I believe that the public must be honestly informed -- not lied to -- simply because there's an agenda going on.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2681
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby GSVNoFixedAbode » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:28 am

This is the sort of thing that should make Stuff / NZ Herald headlines: "CAA fabricates incident with ridiculous staged photos".

Is this part of a publicly available presentation?
GSVNoFixedAbode
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:53 am

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:33 am

I'm trying to find out if it is online anywhere.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2681
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby Perry » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:11 pm

aardvark_admin wrote:Surely we should expect a higher level of honesty and integrity from a government-appointed regulatory authority?

You what? Cock-eyed optimist!
Perry
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby phill » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:30 pm

i just have to worry if a public body with the degree of responsibility that caa has
comes up with this as believable evidential fact are they in any way qualified enough to do the job they are charged with

serious and worrisome enough to demand a ministerial inquiry into the integrity and functional ability of caa staff to provide their services at the required level
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

Postby NoBodyInParticular » Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:10 pm

phill wrote:serious and worrisome enough to demand a ministerial inquiry into the integrity and functional ability of caa staff to provide their services at the required level


Hey Bruce, Phill, yeah i'd have to agree with you, knowingly using false data in a governance 'promotion' sounds to be a form of 'misrepresentation' to me (and that's a term that usually gets lawyers quite excited). :lol:
Hopefully that picture will turn out to be part of a public presentation so that it can be openly exposed for the defamatory type of propaganda it really is. CAA need to be held to account for their actions.
NoBodyInParticular
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:46 am

Next

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron