A few days before Christmas last year, more than 1,000 flights were canceled at Gatwick Airport near London following reports of drone sightings close to the runway. The disruption lasted 33 hours and caused severe disruption, affecting more than 100,000 passengers.
British police been unable to identify any suspects and the incident demonstrates just how difficult it is to find evidence to show who was responsible.
However, after the incident, the airport’s management amended its regulations and took preventive measures, while encouraging nearby residents, aviators and patrol personnel to report people operating drones near the airport.
On Aug. 4 at 8pm, something similar happened in Taiwan. Taipei International Airport (Songshan airport) had to suspend flights due to the intrusion of a drone in its airspace. The airport was reopened 30 minutes later.
Drones that intrude into airport no-fly zones not only jeopardize flight safety, but also affect the rights of passengers, in addition to wasting fuel and time, as such incidents keep aircraft grounded or in the air.
Article 118 of the Civil Aviation Act (民用航空法) says that an owner or operator carrying out flight activities within a prohibited or restricted area within a certain distance of the outer boundary of an airport or airfield only faces a fine, even though the potential harm could be as severe as in far more serious offenses.
Therefore, Article 101 of the act should be made applicable to offenses of this nature. It states that “any person who endangers flight safety or aviation facilities by force, threat or other means shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years, detention or a fine of up to NT$900,000” and “such person who caused damage to aircraft or other facilities shall be subject to imprisonment from three to 10 years; such person who causes death to another is subject to the penalty of death, imprisonment for life or more than 10 years; subject to imprisonment from five to 12 years for causing serious injury to another.”
Airport management immediately stopping aircraft from taking off and landing once a drone is found within a restricted area does ensure safety.
However, the standard procedures in response to drone intrusions and the estimated reaction time should be regulated, so that aircraft and air traffic control have adequate arrangements in place.
As for the drone operators, their behavior can jeopardize flight safety. Article 101 should be applicable to them. If a disruption causes diversions and passengers incur losses, the drone operators should be liable for civil damages.
While the authorities implement improved drone regulations, drone operators should exercise self-control and be aware of the rules to avoid intrusion into airport restricted zones.
Fu Yen-wen is an aircraft dispatcher.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US