While researching that post about Heathrow at the weekend, I thought it best to re-read what the treaty actually says on the subject of landing fees. Quite sensibly, it says that each country can decide its own landing fees, but may not charge foreign airlines more than domestic airlines (Art 15)...
... when I noticed this:
Article 8 - Pilotless aircraft
No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be flown without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without special authorization by that State and in accordance with the terms of such authorization.
Each contracting State undertakes to insure that the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft.
Oh Fuck Off!
1 hour ago
8 comments:
Define pilot?
Very true, take a radio controlled aircraft, one you could buy from a hobby store, every one you see has a "pilot" but none are actually in it at the time.
so now a computer could be flying the thing, aa is the case with droids over the middle east at the moment, then we get down to a computer on the ground guiding the computer in the air, all based on the strategic commands of the time.
i say that as a very enthusiastic PPL myself.
L, J, surely it is referring to "somebody sitting in the aeroplane and steering it"? I can't think of any other definition.
MW. As J says a drone (for example) is piloted by a bloke sitting in a nissen hut somewhere. Why not think like the DLR and have Flight Captains '?
L, seriously, is the man steering the aircraft sitting in the aircraft or is he not? If not, the aircraft is "pilotless".
I accept that there are degrees of pilotlessness, but that is not what they meant back in 1944.
MW. No, it's not what they meant back in 1944. But it's now 2015. They need to think again. (In 1944 'pilotless plane' meant a V1. I can see how ensuring that pilots were on board had a certain merit...).
All this also extends to driverless cars.
It's going to be such fun watching all the bureaucrats try and categorise and 'regulate' all this..
With driver less cars, I can foresee one hell of a legal battle between two insurance companies when there is a collision between two of them, trying to decide who caused the collision.
Jim, nah, that's easy. The insurance companies, or the government, will just insist that driverless cars carry a "black box". After an accident the boxes will be interrogated and all will be a lot clearer than relying on drivers with an incentive to lie.
Post a Comment