Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: rscasny
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 2398 views
  • Likes 9 likes
  • Comments 13 comments
Related
Recommended

Op-Ed: How a Drone Changed a Mind

rscasny

Drones have been around for decades. The first ones were rather primitive, in the World War I and II era. I never thought much about drones until recently. They always seemed like rather harmless devices. But with the advent of what I call "consumer" drones, just about anyone can build, launch, and operate one.

 

My concern about drones has been an on-air collision with a commercial airliner that I am a passenger in. While I realize I am a mere mortal human being, I'd prefer to postpone my demise as long as biologically possible and not prematurely due to a high flying toy.  There have been a good number of drone mid-air collision accidents (see video below). I think there has been some legislation, but the legislation and policing of violations has to my mind been rather weak to lukewarm.

 

This video is unavailable.

 

Granted, drones are a great way to have fun, and learn about electronics and aerodynamics. But I'd be more comfortable if there established drone parks, where drones could be flown, played with, tinkered with, hacked, and happily crash into each other.

 

But my mind was changed this morning while in the safety of my apartment, sipping a Starbucks' Veranda (Blonde Roast) cup of coffee, and reading the NY Times. After plodding through the front page news, I happened to read a story entitled "A Drone Saves Two Swimmers in Australia."

 

Basically, some swimmers got in trouble on some rough seas and a lifeguard was operating a lifesaving drone and "steered the drone toward the swimmers... then released a yellow “rescue pod” that inflates in the water. The two swimmers grabbed the pod, and with its support they made their way to shore. They were fatigued, but not hurt,"  the story said. "The rescue took just 70 seconds."

 

Here in Chicago, Lake Michigan is treacherous for swimmers. While the la lokeoks placid, some areas have a strong undertow. People get drowned every year. Perhaps some could be saved if the lifeguards were issued a safety drone.

 

So, a drone changed my mind.

 

I won't say I feel a whole lot safer flying. More work needs to be done, especially as the drone technology is evolving and becoming more sophisticated. But they have a place in our society, within limits, of course.

  • in reply to dougw

    Well said Douglas.

     

     

    You can ban all the weapons you want and you will achieve nothing.  You have to eliminate the need for people to USE weapons before you solve the problem.

     

    In the right hands, EVERYTHING is a weapon, all you need is the desire to use it.

     

     

     

    DAB

  • Planes and cars and trucks and boats and computers and radios and phones and the internet are prime facilitators in all wars and all kinds of other violent acts, not to mention all kinds of crimes.

    They also enrich our lives and make it possible for the planet to sustain its population.

    Whenever we implement barriers to access technology, it does not prevent use of the technology, it just gives it to a privileged group.

    Fear of the harm that technology can and does cause or facilitate has been around at least since we learned to use fire.

    There is no way to stop technology or its use, because it provides advantages.

    What we really want to stop is anti-social behaviour.

  • in reply to Dudley

    As a GA pilot, I fully understand that the sky is a shared resource

    Accepted BUT you are flying under visual rules which means you are meant to be able to see any other flying objects and avoid them.

     

    You're also required to be above 500ft in rural and 1000ft over cities except for landing/takeoff.

     

    They know it was a drone, they can see it on the radar logs

    Very unlikely as they don't have a transponder and are likely to be under the threshold for a PSR.

    Ground movement radars may pick them up, but only within a certain distance of an Airfield.

     

    The only real solution  ... is for a drone to have a transponder

    That is the better solution in EVERY case, or limit the height it can fly above ground.

    I understand here in NZ we've looked at minature transponders that suit commercial drones are weigh next to nothing, so it is possible.

     

    You will never stop those that want to bypass the policies and protections, and while education will help those that are interested, the best method is to licence the operators.

    This includes recording the purchaser for anything bigger than xxx size. Include the serial number so they can be traced, and ensure the process is as easy as changing vehicle ownership.

    Buying  https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/NoticeOfAcquisition/entry

    Selling  https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/NoticeOfDisposal/entry

     

     

    I've often wondered what would happen if something failed mid flight and it came down onto someone's head

    That's why Pizza delivery and other deliveries by drones are not a good idea IMO.

     

    I've yet to meet technology that knows when it's about to fail and shuts down gracefully ... even on mega dollar machines.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to shabaz

    Oh no, you're right, and I know you are. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed nor do I think there is no place for them. I think drones are one of the most exciting bits of modern tech and really have the capacity to change the world. The future is bright!

     

    It's the present I worry about image

     

    The CAA are treating it as an education issue, and I think they're right to do so. They are trying to ensure that the vast majority of drone users will do so responsibly, and that makes perfect sense. If the problem is "rogue" users, then an obvious solution is to try to minimize on the number of people being "rogue" without realising - then you'll be left with the sort of people who were going to do what they wanted to do regardless of rules or consequences, and they can be dealt with case-by-case.

     

    There are a few things that ground could do - but ultimately almost every solution is one that causes problems. A camera cannot see through clouds. A radio scanner would not detect an autonomous drone that isn't sending or receiving any signals.

     

    The only real solution that covers most scenarios is for a drone to have a transponder. That would get them on to the ADSB network, would mean that they are conspicuous, appear on TCAS, and would in the data it sends include a serial number so that the drone owner can be traced. The problem with that though is the weight and power. Drones are, by their very nature, light, and if someone says to you "if you want to fly that, you'll need to attach this box and power it", that instantly limits the usability / cost of that drone. You have to have electronics and radio equipment that you might not have had in your original design, and that adds to the weight, which in turn means the whole thing has to be bigger, which means should it have a catastrophic failure and fall out the sky, it's much more likely to damage someones house / car / property / head.

     

    And likewise, that won't stop the people who want to be irresponsible from disabling the tech, flying it anyway, and fleeing should they cause any damage.

     

    I don't have the answer, at least not for today's problems.

  • in reply to Dudley

    Hi Dudley,

     

    As you say, the bottle can't be closed. The technology already exists to navigate drones fully autonomously with no radio control. Even if there was a legal requirement to register drones (which perhaps there should be, for certain sizes maybe), you've hit the nail on the head, how would it be enforced, and what would be the imprisonment/fines.

    In some ways it is no different to someone putting a brick on the accelerator pedal of a car; it is then fully autonomous, and cannot be stopped without some impact. It is down to plain old police-work, to investigate who saw someone placing the brick there, or who was seen close to the drone before it took off, and so on. That requires better policing.

    From a technology perspective we could develop better detection methods (cameras with detection algorithms perhaps) to provide warning before they approach an airport maybe. Basically we need to keep improving technology to stay one step ahead. Perhaps there also needs to be legislation that airports need to do more. I don't really know the answer, but you'[re right, it is an enforcement issue. The technical barriers are already gone, and the items used to create drones are too generic to ban or have registration for during purchase. GPS was deliberately inaccurate for years as a way to prevent misuse, but drones don't need to use GPS today (or in the very soon future) because cameras, single board computers and software algorithms will do a good job. Better education will reduce risk of terrorism far greater (and far more lower cost) than enforcement around the world perhaps.