Where does that distinction come from, I don't remember Gunnery saying that remote operation is only applying to Vehicles ...
SR5 p. 183 Gunnery
Vehicle-mounted weapons are fired using ... Gunnery + Logic [Accuracy] for remote operated systems.(Compare this with the example on p. 238)
SR5 p. 238 Control Device
firing a drone-mounted weapon at a target requires a Gunnery + Agility test.
(Drones are a type of vehicle btw)
Agreed, but SR5 seem to make a clear distinction between Drones and Vehicles. It is even more apparent in Rigger 5.0, but even the Gunnery chapter in question on p. 183 is divided between "Gunnery" and "Drone Gunnery".
This is the general rule structure in SR5;
1. They make a blanket statement
2. They list all exceptions to the blanket statement
1. Gunnery use Agility
2a. Vehicle-mounted weapons are fired using Gunnery + Logic [Accuracy] for remote operated systems.
2b. During Sensor Attacks the attacker rolls Gunnery + Logic [Sensor].
If Drone Gunnery is not supposed to use Agility then the "Drone Gunnery" chapter need to mention this.
Yes, it would have made things more clear if the book would have reinforced the fact that Drone Gunnery doesn't change this (and hopefully this is what the Errata team will clarify), but since it is not an exception to the blanket statement it will also not contradict anything as written.
Having said that, they actually
do give an example on p. 238:
firing a drone-mounted weapon at a target requires a Gunnery + Agility test.
If you read the rules as if drone-mounted weapons is not an exception to the blanket statement and indeed use Agility (except for sensor attacks) then you will not find any contradicting rules or examples. This is the only reading that is valid with how the rules and examples are currently written.
If you read rules as vehicle-mounted weapons also include drone-mounted weapons and that drone-mounted weapons is included in the exception which change the attribute from Agility to Logic then you will find contradicting rules or examples. This reading is not valid with how the rules and examples are currently written (at least not without an errata).