The headline of the article: “Plane hits drone over Adelaide airport”
From the very first line in the article: “A light plane has been damaged after hitting what’s thought to be a drone near Adelaide’s Parafield Airport.”
From the next sentence in the article: “when it was struck by an object”.
So which is it? Did the plane hit an “object” or a drone?
So many problems with this ridiculously biased article. It was struck by an “object”. The plane was landing but the altitude at the time of the “strike” is not mentioned so, in theory, someone might have thrown a rock. Or a bird could have flown into it which actually happens frequently unlike a drone-plane collision which I don’t believe has ever happened. To my knowledge there is not a single documented incident of a drone/airplane collision. One can imagine any number of other explanations for how the plane was “struck”. Maybe it was a UFO. To automatically presume that the “object” was a drone when there are other more likely possibilities is nothing more than trolling for readership by a failing newspaper industry. Preying on fears among some of the public – think Chicken Little or Henny Penny.
I’m certainly not defending morons who ignore common sense and laws in the flying of drones. Nor do I doubt that the day will come when there will be a drone/plane collision. And I am in favor of reasonable rules/laws in the flying of drones.