ELC 501

ENGLISH FOR CRITICAL ACADEMIC READING

ARTICLE FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS

NAME

: NOOR HIDAYU BT MAT ZIN

NO.MATRIX

: 2015476778

GROUP

: NHSEF5Y

PROGRAMME

: BACHELOR OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

(HONS)

FACULTY
LECTURER

: FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES , CAMPUS PUNCAK ALAM

: DR. ZARINA SURIYA RAMLAN

In the Article, Drones Are Not Toys, the author, Elizabeth Quintana deals with the issue of
whether the use of drones should be regulated to avoid an air disaster. The author argued if
the drones are safe as toys until an air disaster can happen. She also agree the drones should
be regulated to prevent any air-crash. She assumed that many problems occur if this issue are
being ignored by using a cynical phrases like Better an exploding drone than an exploding
plane to describe the consequence of using drones widely among public. Besides, she also

refuse to believe the drones user responsibility when they are enjoy to fly their devices
without consider the public safety such as at the airport area, and also a congested area.
She begins her case by using her own opinion, stating publics looked at the drones as they are
only small flying devices which fly in the skies. They are more for fun and not endangered
people around them. Until, she mentioned many reports and statistic from around the world
which claimed that many incident at the airports are caused by drones to prove her argument..
For the example, an incident happened at Heathrow Airport when a drone crashed into an
Airbus A320. Luckily, the plane landed intact and safely. The example showed the likelihood
of an air crashed can happened if this issues are uncontrolled. She also worried as the global
UAS (Unmanned Air System) market is predicted to grow 33% to around $6 billion by 2020,
it will describe the whole skies will full by drones flies everywhere and the chances of
accident also increase.
The author also revealed some regulations are made to control the drones to avoid accident or
near-miss scenarios. Like in UK, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has mandated that : Drone flights should be within direct, unaided, line of sight of the pilot.
Drone flights should not be higher than 400 feet above the ground and 500 metres from
the operator .
Drones need to remain more than 150 metres away from congested areas,
Drones should not be flown directly above people, vehicles, vessels and properties unless
with experts monitoring.
In America, US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) requires all drones weighing more than
250 gram to be registered while in UK, drone operators do not need to register or hold a
license to be able to fly. As a consequence of this weak enforcement, people with no formal
training are free to fly their drones without consider the highly chances of accident can
happened. In addition, with this regulations, public still break the rules. Therefore, she
questioned the trust to the owners to fly their drones responsibly as they are constantly break
the rules.
With the statements as earlier, the author immediately presents a counter-argument which
drones are not toys and should be considered as air vehicles just like because of the result in

the consequences mentioned earlier. Other counter argument is the ability of drone operators
to fly their drones without cause harm to people around or properties damage. For her
opinions, they appear as the major cause of this issue and added by reports from local
authorities and statistic. As the evidences provided related directly to the authors argument, it
is considered relevant. The support is objective because the information is from external
resources. The argument is complete because the writer considers opposing views and offers
a counter argument against them. The argument is valid because the evidence is verifiable
and strong. It is possible to check the facts and experts opinions from accuracy. This
argument is credible because it has objectivity and is complete with adequate supports from
reports and statistics.
She suggested that there are some changes need to do in order to solve this issue. Firstly, all
users should be registered with the CAA and undergo training before being allowed to fly and
second is improvement of sensor and intervention procedures to avoid drones enter the
restricted areas. The author generally appears to be inductive in her reasoning, as she
provides all the specific support as to why drones are not toys, they are dangerous and must
be regulated, and the belief of the author.
In summary, the authors first and second argument appear and linked to each other. It
showed that drones are need to be supervised and monitored by authorized agencies with
strong evidences which present by author.
751 WORDS