https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news ... w-airport-near-miss

This comment from the post is interesting, particularily the number of near misses last year.

Drone operators are legally only permitted to fly below 400ft and are expected to stay well clear of airports and aircraft flight paths.

In this case the drone, which could have disabled an engine, not only flew into a major flight path, but also almost 2,000ft higher than allowed.

The number of near misses between aircraft and drones rose from 29 in 2015 to 92 last year.

I wonder how many near misses are required before we all are subject to regulation!!!

"I wonder how many near misses are required before we all are subject to regulation!!!"

We are already subject to regulation with the drone code, the CAA requirements & laws. There are many situations where drones are prohibited, and many where they're not.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs ... mendmentOrder-3.pdf

As yet the object of the story is a U.F.O; a "drone like" object was passed at 250 mph, so they haven't even concluded that it was a drone.  Something for the daily star to fill a space with. Most likely just another piece of rubbish getting blown about.