The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Private sector can lead on drones
Our government’s ability to implement tailored, timely and effective regulatory measures in response to recent, major technological advancements has been abysmal.
Consider the predictable blunders regarding e-commerce, online privacy and digital copyright infringement. Lawmakers’ ineffective actions resulted in them playing “catch-up” to remedy already present harms and, as a result, taking a broadsword rather than a scalpel approach to a problem.
When it comes to drones, the current regulations — the grossly underregulated educational requirements for recreational users — already have us behind the eight ball. That is why the private sector — which stands to lose billions of dollars if tragedy strikes — should mobilize and expeditiously take measures to educate recreational drone users.
Near-collisions with government, commercial and private aircraft are happening with increasing frequency. According to an August FAA report, drone sightings are on track to quadruple this year, compared with 2014. In the same report, airline pilots reported seeing 138 drones at altitudes up to 10,000 feet in June alone. Considering that in most metro- politan areas, helicopters typically fly at an altitude of 400 to 700 feet, it is quite clear the welfare of our citizens is and will be in increasing jeopardy without significant intervention.
According to the FAA’s drone website, www.kno wbeforeyoufly.org, a “recreational” user is someone operating a drone for “personal interest or enjoyment.” A “commercial” user is a person operating a drone for “contract or professional services.” The ramifications of this distinction create a severe disparity between the educational and permitting requirements of both. Clearly, the risk to the general public is the same whether the drone operator is “recreational” or “commercial.”
For recreational users, the FAA assumes they will proactively visit www.kn owbeforeyoufly.org. However, there is no drone registration or verification mechanism that ensures a site visit. Further, even if a user visits the site, he or she will find only a list of vague bullet points that omit a number of critical airspace and safety considerations, such as how to determine accessible and restricted airspaces, maneuvers to avoid mid-air collisions, and evaluating weather conditions.
On the other hand, for commercial users, the FAA requires a drone operator to be versed in all FAA flight rules, obtain an airworthiness certificate for the drone, and either apply for individual flight permits or obtain a blanket exemption permit that requires operators to hold a valid sport pilot’s license — regardless of the size of the drone. While these requirements may be appropriate for large drones resembling actual aircraft, they are exces- sive and costly for small drones, especially of the type used for real estate, film and television photography.
The regulation disparity becomes clear when one considers the underlying assumption that only commercial users are capable of causing serious damage or injuries. Recreational users have access to drones several meters across and weighing up to 55 pounds, and that travel more than 100 mph at heights of several thousand feet. How can it logically be denied they are capable of causing comparable or worse damage than a commercial user?
Additionally, the current regulations are impractical to enforce. While the FAA can impose $25,000 in fines and/or 20 years’ jail time on vi- olators, locating them is nearly impossible. Presently, violators’ drones are spotted visually or on radar. Authorities must then be directed to a location to find the operator — who could be anywhere within a several-mile radius. At a minimum, it should be mandatory to register drones upon purchase, and they should come with factoryinstalled transponders.
The many deficiencies of current FAA regulations, compounded with rapid growth in drone use, alarmingly necessitates that we ask “when,” not “if,” tragedy will strike. That is why the private sector should immediately step in.
Aside from corporate heavyweights like Exxon and Cargill that have been using drones for years, “trendier” companies like Amazon, Google and Domino’s — which have also invested significant time, money and publicity in their implementation of drone services — should mobilize their resources. Surely, their appeal to tech-savvy individuals will find a ready and receptive audience.
These companies have a ripe opportunity via their financial means, political clout and social media access to enthusiastically launch educational and regulatory campaigns. Social outreach efforts such as companysponsored photographic or aerobatic competitions, requiring participants to watch an online instructional video followed by a short test (like online traffic schools), could be one idea.
The impact of a negligently operated drone colliding with a commercial airliner would certainly result in a major backlash against widescale drone adoption for both recreational and commercial users. Such a backlash would inevitably result in what some may consider “overregulation,” to the detriment of all conscientious and responsible drone users — the government taking the broadsword approach.
Any company that takes the measures discussed here will help mitigate an almost inevitable, yet preventable, tragedy.