Invasion of Privacy
In the internet age, the impairment of privacy has become a touchy subject. All aspects of our lives can seemingly be documented and encroached upon without consent, and the implementation of non-governmental UAVs is seen as yet another potential intrusion. The American public had always suspected drones, known to perform illicit and unauthorized bombings for the government abroad, and this suspicion was proven correct in an internationally covered story in July of 2015.
William Meredith and his daughters had been enjoying the summer on their deck, one of his daughters sunbathing in the assumed privacy of their back yard. However, they were startled to notice a pesky drone hovering above their backyard. His daughter waved, attempting to shoo it away, and the drone startlingly moved away from the Meredith residency. Oddly, the drone returned to its place directly above William Meredith’s daughter, and he felt a sense of urgency.
“Is he looking for the girls, is he looking for something to steal? It’s an invasion of my privacy!” he exclaimed to Louisville’s WDRB News. “I went inside and got my shotgun... I shot directly into the air. When he hovered above my house for more than a few seconds, I felt like I had a right to defend my property.” However, the owner of the drone was not pleased, and William Meredith was arrested, facing two felony charges for endangering civilians who could have been hit by the debris.
Needless to say, the entire United States was outraged. A poll by the same WDRB News which interviewed Meredith polled readers, and over 90% supported him being acquitted. Columnist Elie Mystal summarized the sentiments felt by the American public in a fiery editorial about a previous case with a similar story in the blog Above the Law.
“I don’t think I’ve ever been on the side of a person who discharged a weapon in a non-lethal situation, but if your … neighbor is spying on your property with a remote controlled doohickey, shouldn’t you be allowed to destroy it?”
This has led to a careful reevaluation of laws applicable to drones. Current law states that the property rights of a residence only extend 83 feet above the ground. Additionally, drones cannot fly above buildings, and are advised to avoid private residencies. These rules are alarming, especially as the high definition camera technology used in non-governmental UAVs easily provides clear footage of action of the ground, even at heights above 83 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has simply promised to review this case at some point in the next few years, so such privacy concerns unfortunately will not be resolved at a fixed time in the future.
Drones evidently pose a real threat to personal freedoms and privacy, and the lack of action in America despite several cases and YouTube videos depicting similar situations to those of William Meredith is truly scary and disappointing. On the bright side however, Meredith was found not guilty on all accounts of felony, and his case may have set an example for situations in the future. So if your neighbor appears to be monitoring you with a drone, shoot it down, but do so with caution and reasonable doubt.
Airplane Collisions
A major concern of drone operation is of the massive risks that drone operation pose to aircraft. Picture this: You are a commercial pilot, approaching Los Angeles International Airport at 4000 feet. The approach is already risky, from strong Pacific crosswinds and heavy air traffic already complicating the landing. But suddenly, a small, red helicopter drone whizzes right above the cockpit, nearly striking the windshield and severely distracting from the approach. Scary, right?
Unfortunately, this is the horror story experienced by a Southwest Airlines pilot in February of 2015, covered by NBC News. He was forced to take his attention away from the landing, and instead report the near-miss to the control tower, complicating and taking attention away from the landing. Now, many will say that this was a small case, one which was an anomaly and relatively harmless. However, when considered, drones pose a potentially lethal hazard to planes, just as birds do. Bird strikes have been estimated by the FAA to have caused more than two hundred aviation related deaths since 1980. Additionally, the FAA estimates that bird strikes result in over 400 million dollars worth of damage to aircraft every year.
The argument that drones are not as prevalent as birds has been a staple of cynical drone enthusiasts in the United States. However, drones are made of metal, not bones and feathers, and contain electrical parts, increasing the risk of not only hitting aircraft, but causing them to ignite. A Bard College study found that 921 recorded near-misses between drones and aircraft took place from 2013 to 2015, and that in 28 of these, the pilot was forced to make evasive maneuvers to avoid the drone. The FAA has now begun to recognize drones as a serious hazard to aircraft, and has drafted legislation to combat this threat.
The first part of this legislation relates to setting limits, designating the maximum altitude for drone use to be 400 feet above the ground, and mandating that drones not be used within a five-mile radius of airfields. Drone operators are required to make contact with airport authorities if they experience any errors or enter an area within a larger radius of an airport, ensuring that near-misses such as that of the Southwest Airlines case will almost never take place.
The next part of this legislation is more complex. The FAA announced in December of 2015 that an online registry would be created for non-governmental UAVs. Former Assistant Director of the FAA Scott Brenner described this system’s significance in an NBC News interview.
“This adds a level of seriousness to the operation of a drone. By creating this registry, we now have a link to every [drone operator], which will allow us to do a tremendous amount of education on drone safety.”
In contrast to this opinion, Michael Drobac, a lawyer and lobbyist for small-drone enthusiasts, presented a different idea in the same NBC News story.
“I think that the fee involved will create a deterrent, and some will not want to pay it. Do I think that those who will operate in an inappropriate manner will register in the system? Probably not.”
Nonetheless, these laws have significantly reduced the amounts of near-misses that took place, and along with drone registration will see that the use of civilian drones is safe to all. Additional measures like making GPS technology for drones that will restrict them from breaking government mandated boundaries are technologies supported by both the FAA and drone manufacturers. So overall, the next time you’re flying in a plane, try not to worry about a drone strike taking place and thank the FAA.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Drone-Almost-Hits-Commercial-Jet-at-4000-Feet-at-LAX-291386471.htmlhttp://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Drone-Almost-Hits-Commercial-Jet-at-4000-Feet-at-LAX-291386471.html
http://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf
Birdstrikes
Unsurprisingly, any flying object poses a risk to drones. Airplanes, helicopters, you name it. Interestingly enough, it is in fact not nimble and metal aircraft which create the greatest mutual risk with drones, but instead birds, by far the most populous inhabitants of the skies. In a stunning and thrilling YouTube video, Massachusetts resident Christopher Schmidt had been flying his Quadcopter drone over a scenic riverside park. All appeared well, until BAM! A hawk that had been gracefully soaring far away detected the drone as a threat, and hit it with immense force, propelling the Quadcopter to the ground with such force that it bounced. This exhilarating video unsurprisingly delighted its viewers, and went on to receive over five million hits. Viewers overwhelmingly supported the hawk, with one leaving the comment “I’m proud of the hawk, I wish hawks would do stuff like this more often!”, and another declaring on the Daily Mail that “Even nature hates drones. I have respect for this hawk.” Yet, it must be understood that however heroic the actions of this bird may appear, drones provide the opportunity for groundbreaking scientific findings, and a solution must be reached to prevent natural undermining of the the vital research which drones can perform. Thankfully, several solutions have been proposed and implemented to prevent bird strikes to drones. Several drones have been designed with ergonomic, bird resistant designs, which include isolating and protecting the rotors, making them inaccessible to the talons of birds. Additionally, sturdy construction of drones can prevent irreparable damage, and careful attachment of all sensors and cameras can prevent the loss of highly expensive parts and machines. Perhaps more innovative have been technologies which use aggressive bird sounds and unfavorable sound wave frequencies to distract birds. A revolutionary drone with such capabilities, named the Pro-Hawk was constructed by the Bird-X corporation, a company specializing in anti-bird drone technologies. Its founder Dennis Tiles described the Pro-Hawk’s capabilities in an interview for Drone Life, a drone enthusiast forum.
“Birds are repelled by the unit thanks to a sonic sound unit built directly into the unit, terrifying birds with a naturally recorded, proprietary combination of predator calls and prey bird distress cries... the unit creates a terrifying physical presence to pest birds further mimicking a predator bird in order to keep birds from creating dangerous situations.”
Overall, it is evident that the unintended consequences of the drone-bird relationship are enormously destructive and unnecessary. The implementation of new technologies will prevent millions of dollars in damage in the future, and do so by helping both birds and UAV owners, an overall win scenario. So if you feel empathetic towards the hawk that went viral, don’t, because science will progress at unprecedented rates with drone technology aiding discoveries.