This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2018/0530.shtml
Surely, if regulators are using a scientific, risk-based approach to creating regulations around drone-use, they would all come up with pretty much the same rules.
So how is it that the issue of "how close can you safely fly to an airport" seems to have produced so many varied responses?
Why is it that I can fly right next to an uncontrolled airport in Australia but I have to be at least 4Km away from the same class of airport here in New Zealand?
Why is it that in the USA, I simply need to tell the control tower I'll be flying with 5 miles of an airport but in New Zealand I simply and prevented from flying within 4Km at all?
Why is New Zealand pretty much the only country in the world which treats all airports as equal (controlled, uncontrolled, fixed-wing or helicopter) when other countries at least recognise that helipads do not require anything like the same exclusion radius due to the different flight characteristics of helicopters versus fixed-wing?
Surely, if protecting the world from drones is as important as is claimed, we deserve a far better quality of regulation than we're obviously getting.