Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Droning on again

About seven years ago, I used some of the technology developed for my LCCM and applied it to the job of creating UAVs, right here in NZ.

Unfortunately, I partnered with the wrong guy and he ran off with and destroyed the results of several years worth of labour while having one of the "uncontrolled bouts of rage" he seems prone to.

Live and learn I guess.

However, even way back then it was very apparent that unmanned aerial vehicles had a huge potential to take over tasks currently requiring the use of full-sized aircraft and their crew.

However, we're now approaching another turning-point in the acceptance of this technology and it's one that could either see a boom or a bust in this small but potentially very profitable industry.

It boils down to the legality of "drones" -- a drone being either a fully autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle or a remotely-piloted one.

For obvious reasons (paranoia mainly), many governments around the world are not too keen on mere "citizens" having the right to own and use these devices.

Of course there are massive safety issues as well. After all, it's simply not sensible to have unmanned aircraft trying to occupy the same bit of airspace as full-sized aircraft. The operator of a UAV can be unaware that his craft is directly in the flight path of a Cessna 172 or Boeing 747 -- and the pilot of the full-sized craft may not be able to see and thus avoid the smaller plane -- with disastrous results.

Likewise, I'm sure there are very few of us who'd feel happy if the skies over our heads was filled with drones that, at any moment, could plunge earthwards and onto our houses, cars, or heads.

However, there are some basic rules that would ensure the safety of the public and other craft -- yet we seem a little slow in coming up with a suitable set of those rules which aren't so restrictive as to effectively balance safety against utility.

We all know that driving your car is one of the most dangerous things you can do each day -- yet we allow people to drive with only token attempts to ensure that both the driver and vehicle are up to the task.

The road toll could (for instance) be significantly reduced by fitting governors and mandatory breath-alcohol-checks to all vehicles -- but do we do it?

No we don't -- because it's deemed that the inconvenience would compromise the utility of our vehicles beyond an "acceptable level".

From this we can clearly see that regulators consider their job is not to eliminate risk, simply mitigate it to a level that is deemed reasonable.

So where do we draw the line with drones?

Can't we simply say that all drones must fly below 400 feet (full sized aviation is not allowed to descend to this level except on take-off or landing, or in an area designated for "low flying" -- hence there would never be any risk of collision.

Can't we simply say that all drones must not fly over built-up areas, roadways or other places where a crash is likely to cause collateral damage or death? Surely a drone crashing in a paddock out in the countryside is going to do little except perhaps singe a little grass.

Can't we simply say that all drones must be flown or operated by people who have achieved a recognised level of proficiency -- thus ensuring that those who fly them are "fit and proper" persons for such tasks and have proven that they understand the rules and regulations?

The fact that so many governments around the world are seemingly poised with their fingers over the "ban" button when it comes to privately owned/used UAVs indicates that perhaps there's a whole lot more than just safety involved in such decisions.

Perhaps their biggest fear is not that innocent people will be killed through accidents -- but that it might further erode the veil of secrecy that surrounds a growing amount of the government's activities in certain sectors.

Apparently it's okay for police and the SIS to illegally spy on the public -- but the government isn't quite so keen for the public to spy on them.

Once again I remind our elected representatives and their workers -- "only those with something to hide have anything to fear".

Ought the private use of "drones" (and RC toys that act like drones) be banned or regulated out of existence? Or should we embrace this technology and consider it to be another area where innovative NZ companies could contribute to our export receipts.

Here's one such company which has been lucky enough to secure some airspace suitable for UAV testing.

Remember, the real future of R&D (even in the UAV industry) is in the hands of private companies.

Remember what happened last time the government threw $3m of YOUR money at the development of UAV technology. What have we got to show for all that money now? Compare today's website with the promises offered 2009

N'uff said.

Come on government - throw us a bone!

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font