Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: rscasny
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 3080 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 mcb1

    GA pilot here with a slightly different perspective. The aircraft I fly is made from wood, with a fabric covering. Were it to have a collision with a drone of reasonable size, it would undoubtedly tear the fabric, and I can't see how that would end well. And it's not just wood and fabric planes that could be brought down by a drone - helicopters fly lower than planes and are therefore at greater risk from a collision with a drone, and should a drone of reasonable size hit the rotor or the rotor hub, that also won't end well. It is only a matter of time before somebody dies.

     

    As a GA pilot, I fully understand that the sky is a shared resource - it doesn't belong to planes, you have to share it with all users, and drones are just the newest arrival to what will increasingly be busy skies. There are rules and regulations in this country that limit drone use, just as there are limits on plane use, helicopter use, hot air balloon use, parachuting, gliders, passenger airliners, and the military.

     

    The problem with drones is that should their rules and regs be broken, there is no enforcement. They know it was a drone, they can see it on the radar logs, but they don't know where it came from or who was operating it. There's a thing in aviation called "Airprox reports", which is about near or actual collisions in mid-air, and they are getting increasingly concerned, partly with the increase in reported near collisions, but mostly in the fact that they cannot trace drone operators after the fact.

     

    But that's just the risk to air traffic - I semi-regularly see drones flying around while I'm out with the dog, and I've often wondered what would happen if something failed mid flight and it came down onto someone's head. And as mentions, the potential for terrorism is pretty scary. Drone + hand grenade is a pretty terrifying prospect.

     

    The djinni won't be put back in the bottle, nor would I want it to. Drones are absolutely a part of mankind's future - that combined with the tech that they are putting into driverless cars will change our society as automated drones become entirely feasible. But in the immediate term, something has to be done about enforcement. They need to be able to ping a drone and know exactly who it belongs to

  • in reply to shabaz

    Good post.

     

     

    Ben Franklin said it best, "If you sacrifice your freedom for security you will soon find you have neither!"

     

     

     

    DAB

  • The planes being brought down by a drone scare is scaremongering by some over sensitive people.

    Sure it might damage an aircraft, but the worst it can do is damage an engine which is a perfectly flyable situation and all aircraft are designed for it happening at the worst time ... takeoff.

     

    Damaging an aircraft is not a cheap exercise as passengers need to be rebooked, accommodated, etc, as well as the physcal repairs and downtime.

    So yes it costs the Airline, but that won't win public support as much as waving the safety banner.

     

    Mark

  • Discovery had a great program on Drone Wars.

    The issue is that drones have already been used to drop nuclear material on the Japanese Palace (if I recall correctly), and another landed on the white house grounds.

    So security experts world wide have been looking for solutions.

     

    This program talked about the issue and showed 4 or 5 different suppliers who make anti-drone technology, testing against a drone invasion.

    The issue was that any other method of 'taking out a drone' results in the payload being delivered, and the object was to make the drone do a controlled landing, or return to home.

     

    Of all the systems, only one was really successful and the drones couldn't even take off from 1km away.

    They freely admitted that this technology would only work on drones that radiated a signal, and as we know the SU got around that in Cruise missles to stop them being tracked.

     

    So if some terrorist is really keen on doing something, there will always a be a way to beat the known systems.

    So Drones v Aircraft are the least of the concerns.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to shabaz

    "In terms of the risks, for sure there could still be bored teenagers/hackers/terrorist implications, but the media deliberately has no perspective, there are more people dying of pollution in cities."

     

    You are 100 per cent right. They don't have perspective. I was an editor at a magazine for a few years and I can say with certainty that most journalists are ill prepared to report on deep issues, especially not technology. My guess is pollution in all its forms causes more deaths than drones and terrorism combined.

     

    Technology for the most part serves the good of humankind. But I suspect the struggle of technology's value vs an unknowing public will deepen immeasurably once AI has diffused into many products of the future.