Editor
The Engineer
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – or drones as they’re usually dubbed by the media – are rarely out of the news these days.
And from recent reports touching on their potential use by Syria’s oppressive regime to the regular claims of civilian casualties resulting from US predator drone attacks – it’s fair to say they don’t get a particularly good press.
This is something of a problem for the aerospace sector which is keen to grow the sector but claims that the development of the technology, and its potential use in a host of non-military applications, is being hampered by regulations limiting the use of UAVs in civil airspace.
It’s easy to see how this could stifle development. There are some pretty significant technical hurdles around operating unmanned and manned aircraft in civil airspace and the limited opportunities to put the technology through its paces doesn’t make it any easier for engineers to find a solution to these problems.
But it’s equally easy to understand why the public might be alarmed by the prospect of robot aircraft – most of which are designed and equipped for military applications – operating anywhere beyond the most heavily controlled test facility. Indeed, at the time of writing, public concerns over safety and privacy are topping the list of concerns on our current poll on the topic.
It’s not quite a Catch-22, but it’s close, and a reminder that the aerospace industry faces an uphill struggle in its efforts to grow the UAV business.
Clearly it’s a topic for much debate, and therefore next month we’ll be chairing a special roundtable event in which we’ll ask a panel of some of the UK’s leading UAV experts how industry is working to address the technical, procedural and regulatory challenges of flying UAVs in civil airspace. The discussion, which will be covered here in detail, promises to provide a fascinating perspective on how the UK aerospace industry intends to grow a sector in which it could secure a leading edge. As always, we’re keen to reflect the views and opinion of Engineer readers so If there’s anything you’d like us to put to our expert panel then please do drop us a line.
The principle which governs flight under Visual Flight Rules (in any airspace) is “see and avoid”. As soon as they are capable of following that principle and the other rules of the air, while being operated or operating autonomously, to a standard at least as good as that achieved by general aviation aircraft, UAV’s should be allowed into uncontrolled and controlled airspace while following exactly the same rules as anyone else.
Until then, they have substantial blocks of UK airspace reserved for their operation, for example over Salisbury Plain and west Wales. The expansion of those danger areas to the exclusion of other airspace users should be avoided if at all possible: general aviation in the UK is already under threat on a number of fronts.
Unless and until these things can be proven to be able to see, recognise, and avoid my paraglider, 100.000% of the time, I don’t think they should be permitted in uncontrolled airspace at all. I should not be required to buy or carry additional equipment merely to make up for deficiencies in the design of these toys.
Just because there is a challenge to build these drones does not mean it should be done.
Any Engineer worth his salt should consider the moral implication once the human element is removed, so is the moral conduct of those who condone it. A very fine line, can you live with the sick actions that follow.
Can some one please explain to me and those I share knowledge with, why such devices are required.
These machines have brought death and misery to innocent people and fear to many others. Syria is the next chosen place for the international cabals to destroy, just as they did Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc., etc.
These devices are being used and deployed to enable the psychopathic destroyers of nations to further the genocides.
We have a humanitarian crisis escalating on a daily basis induced by a system of economics that was designed to do just what it is.
If these evils are to be halted and turned to good purpose, those within the commercial construct that continues to espouse business as usual, must cease and desist from following the money.
If they do not, our children and all future generations will be put into even deeper jeopardy.
What is the purpose for unmanned UAV’s for none military purpose? Are we looking for the delivery of goods/people around the country/world door to door rather than using the traditional routes – please explain?
Legitimate civil uses are many. Fire service can monitor fires in large building using a Thermal Image camera, to save risking firemens lives. Police can monitor crowds from a better angle and see a fuller picture. SAR teams can search mountains safely, etc. etc. All these can be done by helicopter, but UAV’s are a fraction of the price.
For those unable to understand how useful VTOL UAVs could be in civilian applications I recommend they start learning by googling the word Matternet, and then watch the project video.
“SAR teams can search mountains safely”
Safe for the SAR team. Not necessarily safe for whoever the UAV hits while in flight or when it hits the ground.
As for the “why”, follow the money. These things are cheap. Do you have any idea how long it takes to train a helicopter pilot? How much it costs to keep a chopper in the air, per hour? You could buy a small fleet of UAVs for what it costs run a helicopter for a day.
I’m all in favour of armed UAVs for legitimate conflicts – why risk bomber pilots when you don’t have to over a hostile country?
But the idea of UAVs in Class G airspace, where I spend my leisure time, scares me, not because of some amorphous civil liberties argument, but because of the direct physical danger they present.
Civilian UAV have a lot of valid advantages for SAR, fire monitoring, flood, planning etc. Unfortunately they can also be used for very serious invasions of privacy. Very tight controls would be required for their use. Can you imagine what the news of The World could have done with them!
With regards to safety this should be resolvable with suitable technology, lot easier than automated cars.
As an ex-fireman, I find it hard to believe that they could be of other than minimal use to the Fire Service. Perhaps in large industrial fires, to locate the seat in a very large complex, but in anything smaller, it was pretty obvious what was to be done. A fire is best tackled by immediate, human, action; not waiting for the drone to turn up, especially a house fire. Forget the damn things-they are only a step on the way to overhead continuous surveillence on us all