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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers