Sunday, August 10, 2014
PIC Podcast
I've been lucky enough to participate in implementing a podcast for my department at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). If you're a pilot, or you're curious about being a pilot, check out our Pilot Information Center Podcast page at http://aopa-pic.podomatic.com/ , or click this link on your mobile device to add the podcast feed to your podcast app: http://aopa-pic.podomatic.com/rss2.xml
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Why Drones Aren’t Drones- and the Negative Perception that the Word "Drones" Might Cause
The recent uptick in so-called drone videos shared online has resulted in a spike in unmanned aircraft awareness as far as their capabilities. Spectacular face-to-face July 4th fireworks footage is doubtlessly appealing, and while it is hard to argue as to the merits of the video, I would like to address the text that surrounds those videos routinely embedded in news articles or social media posts.
The word drone likely triggers a different impression upon each person that reads the word in this context, and some readers likely dismiss their lack of understanding of the word and replace it with an assumption of approval of such activities. In contrast, many readers who are involved in the aviation arena take umbrage to the notion of a drone, since the word may imply some degree of autonomy. Autonomy brings visions of Skynet where computers are commanding aircraft to perform any manner of civilian or military activities, either benign or purposefully dangerous.
So "drones" = Skynet. Well! No wonder there is fear, uncertainty, and doubt going on here.
Unmanned aircraft sharing the air with other manned aircraft causes many pilots or non-flying individuals involved in aviation to suffer a transient bout of hypertension. In isolation, the idea that an unmanned aircraft may contribute to a mid-air collision is not an unreasonable fear at first, until considering that all pilots operating an aircraft are required to “see and avoid” others in order to prevent a collision (except in cases where vision is impaired, in which case air traffic control uses radar to perform the task for them).
The knowledge gap occurs when the idea of drones projects a lack of see-and-avoid capabilities as a result of human intervention being difficult or impossible without a human present to perform the task, either onboard or guiding the aircraft remotely from the ground. This is why the “drones” moniker may not be appropriate; in fact, the FAA refers to unmanned aircraft as part of UAS, or Unmanned Aircraft Systems. See for yourself at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/ , where such guidance includes “Historically, unmanned aircraft have been known by many names including: “drones,” “remotely piloted vehicles (RPV),” “unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV),” “models,” and “radio control (R/C) aircraft.” (from http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf). The upshot is thus: regardless of what you call it- drone, R/C aircraft, etc., these aircraft are being piloted by a person from a location which is not on board the aircraft, and they are still bound by Federal regulation to colliding with other persons or aircraft. Nothing has changed in that regard.
The word drone likely triggers a different impression upon each person that reads the word in this context, and some readers likely dismiss their lack of understanding of the word and replace it with an assumption of approval of such activities. In contrast, many readers who are involved in the aviation arena take umbrage to the notion of a drone, since the word may imply some degree of autonomy. Autonomy brings visions of Skynet where computers are commanding aircraft to perform any manner of civilian or military activities, either benign or purposefully dangerous.
So "drones" = Skynet. Well! No wonder there is fear, uncertainty, and doubt going on here.
Unmanned aircraft sharing the air with other manned aircraft causes many pilots or non-flying individuals involved in aviation to suffer a transient bout of hypertension. In isolation, the idea that an unmanned aircraft may contribute to a mid-air collision is not an unreasonable fear at first, until considering that all pilots operating an aircraft are required to “see and avoid” others in order to prevent a collision (except in cases where vision is impaired, in which case air traffic control uses radar to perform the task for them).
The knowledge gap occurs when the idea of drones projects a lack of see-and-avoid capabilities as a result of human intervention being difficult or impossible without a human present to perform the task, either onboard or guiding the aircraft remotely from the ground. This is why the “drones” moniker may not be appropriate; in fact, the FAA refers to unmanned aircraft as part of UAS, or Unmanned Aircraft Systems. See for yourself at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/ , where such guidance includes “Historically, unmanned aircraft have been known by many names including: “drones,” “remotely piloted vehicles (RPV),” “unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV),” “models,” and “radio control (R/C) aircraft.” (from http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf). The upshot is thus: regardless of what you call it- drone, R/C aircraft, etc., these aircraft are being piloted by a person from a location which is not on board the aircraft, and they are still bound by Federal regulation to colliding with other persons or aircraft. Nothing has changed in that regard.
The plain and unfortunate truth is that we are forging ahead into new territory with the rapid advent of small remote-controlled aircraft systems overtaking the slow-moving regulatory process which is trying to catch up with the new mix of aircraft utilizing the national airspace system. I would submit that when articles on the topic are shared, a bit of consideration should be used as far as what the word drone might drum up in the imagination of the reader, and what better choices might be available. As individuals involved in the aviation industry, we have a responsibility to get it right. Readers may harbor unknown perceptions that a writer or reposter might not consider.
PS: as for those true "drones" controlled by computer in order to deliver your Amazon goodies- those aren't going to happen anytime soon, as they currently have no way to fit into our regulatory framework.
PS: as for those true "drones" controlled by computer in order to deliver your Amazon goodies- those aren't going to happen anytime soon, as they currently have no way to fit into our regulatory framework.
Disclaimer: the views expressed herein are solely my own, and are not necessarily a reflection of my employer or their position.
Further references for your consideration:
Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft–Update
14 CFR PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
In particular, “(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
