What the Next Five Years may Hold
Though drones are relatively new to the commercial market, having been around for about five years, there have been numerous incidents that have caught the attention of both the media and the authorities. Each time legislation and policies have to either be made, defined, or reinterpreted to address each specific situation. While we don’t know what the next five years will look like for the future of drones, we can speculate on some of the issues that may arise as they continue to become ever more popular.
Issues such as beyond line of sight, sense and avoid, and airport navigation will not be addressed as the FAA is currently attempting to mitigate the risks that these operations pose with laws and waivers. Personally I see the development of swarm technology to be one of the larger issues facing authorities as the only requirement is that there is a remote pilot in command for each drone. This doesn’t address the real issue that swarms pose. The swarm puts many drones in close proximity to one another and should one malfunction it may crash into the others and cause a much larger disaster than a single drone crashing. To avoid the potential danger resulting from a multi-drone crash it may be wise to require additional safety procedures to be in place that the current UAS does not require. These requirements may include fire extinguishers should the batteries be punctured, location restrictions to protect people and infrastructure, and additional certifications in order to have properly trained personnel on hand to respond to an incident.
The weaponization of drones is also a very real possibility that the next five years may hold. Currently the drone laws released in Part 107 by the FAA only require that drones not carry hazardous materials or pose a threat but the wording is vague enough to allow people to take advantage of it. This became a reality as the state of North Dakota passed a law legalizing the police to use less than lethal rounds on a UAS such as a bean bag or rubber bullet round. This is the first step in blurring the lines defining hazardous and if it continues to remain unaddressed it may lead to further development of armed drones. This is not to say that the police shouldn’t have access to UAS technology to help in their operations, but that laws concerning the armament of UAS should be better addressed. The FAA may allow police to arm their drones but they must make it clear whether this is permissible for the average citizen to do and to what extent are they allowed arm them.
The last of the major possibilities to cause concern in the next five years may be the issue of privacy continually being unaddressed by the federal government. Many people have grown accustomed to a certain level of privacy that drones will easily be able to violate. Since property doesn’t control the airspace above the land, drones may fly over anyone’s property without permission form the owner. And this problem cannot be resolved fully by state or local governments because as they can’t legislate against the federal laws they can only add to them with trespassing and privacy laws. However, should the state or local area not properly resolve these issues the people have a very limited course of action against the invasion of their privacy.
Additionally, shipping products is a risk beyond just the fact that to be effective they need to fly beyond line of sight. This comes from the dependency on trust from the shipper and the customer. Should the University begin in UAS deliveries there needs to be a way to ensure that the package reaches the rightful owner and that it does so in good condition. Simply dropping the package off and leaving won’t guarantee a safe shipment but staying and waiting may cause other problems. Should people attempt to steal the drone and/or the package the company must have a safe way to respond. The UC could create designated landing areas and have monitoring staff, but these are resources that need constant attention and policy to ensure their proper implementation.
Since several UC campuses have wildlife near or on the campus at certain periods it may be required to announce an environmental policy for UAS and animal interactions. Some animals may be distressed when pursued by a UAS and others may become aggressive and lash out. These situations should be avoided or conducted in a responsible manner. As there is an absence in federal law concerning UAS interactions with animals, it is up to the University to mitigate the impact on the surrounding environment by UAS operators.
These are just a few hypothetical issues that people and pilots may face in the next five years as well as what may need to be done by the authorities or operators to reduce the risks.
