Stuart Nathan
Features editor
Politicians will surely be unable to resist legislating on the use of commercial drones in the wake of the collision with an airliner near Heathrow. But they have to be realistic.
This Monday marked the anniversary of the death of Albert Einstein, which is as good a time as any to recall a saying often attributed to him. “There are only two things in infinite supply in the universe,” he’s supposed to have said, “hydrogen and stupidity. And I’m not entirely sure about the hydrogen.” Sometimes the saying is attributed to Einstein, sometimes to science fiction writer Harlan Ellison, and sometimes to Frank Zappa, but whatever the attribution, it doesn’t make it any less true.
The reason this adage comes to mind is because of the news that some idiot flew a drone so close to an aircraft landing at Heathrow airport that the two collided. Fortunately, only the drone was damaged and nobody was hurt; but the event, along with the revelation that there have been 25 near misses between domestic drones and aircraft in the past twelve months, has led to the inevitable – and inevitably vague – calls for “something to be done”.
One issue is that it’s already against Civil Aviation Authority rules to fly drones in congested areas, and drones with cameras can’t be flown within 50m of another vehicle. But flying near an airport isn’t specifically banned and, even though airports are clased as ‘controlled airspace’, drones below 7kg in weight are technically exempt from these controls.

So, what could be done? The question of why somebody would even be flying drones that close to an airliner does arise: apparently some people like to demonstrate their flying skill by taking pictures of the crew or passengers of an aircraft through the windows. See the opening remark about the inexhaustible nature of stupidity. But the CAA code could be hardened from a guideline into criminal law, with stiff penalties for breaching it (of course the dreadful prospect of terrorists using explosive-laden drones is already covered by other laws). But presumably policing this would depend on patrols actually catching someone in the act; retrospective investigation must surely be a tough call.

On yesterday’s Radio 4 Today programme, ‘drone lawyer’ Peter Lee of Taylor Vinters spoke about the idea of ‘geofencing’ – using GPS co-ordinates to define ‘no-fly zones’ in which the drones’ navigation software would be disabled. This, he added, would depend on the drones’ systems being equipped with software to recognise the geofence, but installing this could be a mandatory condition of their sale. Compulsory registration of drone sales along with equipping drones with unique identifying components that could be traced back to their owners in the event of their being used illegally could be another safeguard, although there are already problems with people buying other items with the potential to be offensive weapons via the internet, and excessive need for registration does smack somewhat of authoritarianism. Moreover, no remains of the drone involved in the Heathrow collision have been recovered, and searching for fragments is surely a waste of police time.
It’s also the case that as yet, there has been relatively little research into the effects of drone-strike. As we reported in the news analysis article linked above, it seems unlikely that they could cause any more damage than a birdstrike, and as a shredded drone is considerably less messy than a shredded goose probably even less. Distraction of pilots if the drone strikes the cockpit windows is probably a bigger risk, though even then the use of autopilot on landing might reduce the danger.
But clearly the issue can’t merely be left, and the urge that politicians feel to be seen to be acting will probably ensure that it won’t. We can only hope that the advice of experts in the technology as well as legal experts like Mr Lee will both be sought and heeded. We can’t eliminate idiocy, as Einstein (or Ellison, or Zappa) said, but we can try to reduce its effects.

On a very different note, my colleagues and I were shocked and saddened to hear of the death last week of Professor Sir David MacKay at the tragically young age of 48. Most of us crossed paths with David during his time as chief scientific advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change between 2009 and 2014, and we were unfailingly struck by his clarity of thought on the vexed issues of energy and climate, his insistence on evidence and the need to base policy on verified data, whether that policy concerned the siting of windfarms or advice to the public on whether to unplug phone chargers.
His book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air is and will doubtless remain one of the key texts on the subject. What’s even more remarkable is that, as we explained in this interview with David that we ran in 2010, the book was written in his spare time and it wasn’t even his primary area of expertise; a mathematician and physicist, Prof MacKay had spent his career to that point researching human-machine interfaces and natural language processing, and lectured on this at the University of Cambridge for 15 years. Among his many other achievements was securing a retrial for Sally Clarke, who had been wrongly convicted of murdering her two sons on the basis of a mistaken interpretation of the statistics of DNA evidence.
But what struck you on meeting David was his friendliness, his willingness to talk and his desire to communicate in simple, understandable language, which as his blogs during his final illness show, never diminished. Some people may not be as convinced as he was of the link between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, but nobody could fail to be impressed by his sincerity and dedication to linking his conclusions to hard, verifiable science. He’s a great loss and we at The Engineer would like to pass on our condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
So if I fly my drone(s) over my property, no other drone – police or other – would be allowed within 50m of mine?
The article is total inaccurate, the rules as that stand say:-
A drone must be
-with line of sight of the operator
-not with 50 meters of any person, or building not connection to the operation
-not with 150 meter of conjested space.
Having a camera on not is irrelevant as is weight.
A little bit of unconfirmed reporting here. Currently ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36069002) the pilot thinks he had hit a drone, but no damage was found on the aircraft, nor any wreckage has been found on the ground. (If it doesn’t sound like a duck, or look like a duck it probably isn’t a duck!)
As (i’ve) posted elsewhere, even relatively small birds leave significant damage or imprint, so I would suggest if the aircraft was undamaged there is very little chance of this being a drone strike (although, I stand to be proved wrong).
As with anything you can put all the policies in place you wish but they only stop the honest person or accidental stray into the wrong place.
Most people who would be flying in these areas and in flight paths I suggest are probably doing so intentionally, for whatever reason, so will probably if required use systems without geofencing etc. for whatever their nefarious means require.
Drone
Two important things here:
1. Was it actually a drone or something else, lots of others things hit aircraft – from bits dropping off other aircraft to items set in flight by metrological conditions!
2. If it was a drone – then in a way good news, the damage was virtually zero, the aircraft was put back into use immediately.
One also have to remember Pilots are very much anti-drone as they do of course pose a threat to their jobs (eventually) and certainly to non ATL (passenger) commercial pilots in activities such as surveying.
Also I do wonder how long a small drone would last in a busy flight path with the large vortex’s created by heavies hitting it, or perhaps the stabilization of modern drones is just so good!
Perhaps the only thing that can be done as you say, criminal offence and stiffer penalties the current laws, which are more than adequate If obeyed!
Should add I hold a private pilots licence and fly drones – so see both sides of the argument.
I am NOT looking for any ‘qudos’ from our illustrious organ (or its editorial staff) but this editorial seems to me to show all that is good about our profession.
A ‘slap-on-the wrist’ for whoever believes it appropriate to ‘try to take pictures’ of the crew of airliners on final approach [Though presumably they got the idea from Hollywood, Top Gun and Tom Cruise] and a series of suggestions about ways to deal with such. “One cannot legislate against stupidity” is another phrase (a la Einstein) I recall: though perhaps there is some forgiveness applicable to a single stupid act: but none to the same multiplied by a million and apparently appropriate for nation-to-nation conflict. Or the aggressive essential (to win) way of an adversarial society. There is a lovely Russian proverb: “Better a lean peace than a fat victory” told to me by a dear friend.
She is just completing the various reports, legal, medical, social, that (as her mother’s legal guardian-following Altzheimers, et al) on her death the Russian State requires her to provide. Perhaps particularly relevant as her mother was one of the few young babies/ children who survived the siege of Leningrad.
I did not know Professor McKay but mourn the loss to science and technology of his passing. The good thing is that he has influenced lives: surely the only real memorial.
WOW! Id love to know where you got your information about the Heathrow incident. It is grossly inaccurate, misleading and only adding to the scare mongering.
There has been no confirmation that a ‘drone’ made contact with the aircraft, it could have been anything and I would almost guarantee it had feathers.
Please do your research better before posting this nonsense.
I am in the ‘drone’ business and reports like this infuriate me (in case you hadn’t guessed already)!! Very poor show ‘Engineer’.
You’re missing the point! Even if the journalism is inaccurate it raises the issue that it is perfectly possible that a stupid drone pilot would do such a thing. Should the drone be sucked into an engine then who would be responsible for the outcome; even if not causing fatalaties, it costs money and time to repair. No doubt the stupid drone pilot would rapidly hide the controller and run away.
Preventative measures such as geofencing could easy be removed by re-mapping, and until our airports are surrounded by defensive laser blankets, it’s down to the intelligence of drone pilots.
I can assure you I have not missed the point, simply not addressed it.
I agree whole heartedly that something does need to be done though what it is, I do not know. I would not like to have to make that decision and am certainly not going to start making statements as fact that are no more than my own personal opinion.
Far from missing the point, I beleive David has made a very valid comment that a totaly unsubstantiated incident is being widely reported by the media as fact.
While I expect nothing less of the usual news outlets it is disapointing that the BBC and the Engineer are comiting the same error.
With everyone carrying a camera in their phone, where is the evidence, photographic or otherwise to support this report.
A deliciously ironic juxtaposition of two drone/UAV articles today. One drone possibly bounced off an aircraft and the other crashed.
The case for restricting drone activity within the approach paths to airports and perhaps more importantly smaller airstrips where a light aircraft could take a relatively bigger hit looks to be compelling.
I’ll take the train.
Pretty much all of the commercially available drones as far as I can see operate on industry “standard” 2.4 Ghz radio control equipment as do RC cars, planes etc.
I can’t imagine that it would be too difficult to block or jam a radio signal at 2.4 Ghz and create an exclusion zone around airports, prisons, hospitals or anywhere that some muppet flying a drone would be undesirable?
Seems fairly straightforward to me?
Well, you Mr. Nathan probably know the answer: prohibit all access to microcontrolers, sensor chips (including mobile phones) technical documentation, computer literacy,
aerodynamics knowledge etc. to everybody but “the good guys”.
And then remember – where do you stop?
Somebody enraged by this might kill you with a stone.
May I assume that all drones are registered to someone/thing. I do not wish to appear frivilous but surely there is a positive ‘spin’ that might be put upon this.
Let ‘the authorities’ [who I still have to hope are ‘the good guys, us!] have the power to sequest, confiscate, commandeer…all such in times of national emergency. Issue these to the police, fire brigade, territorial army, emergency services and have such ready to start patrolling (controlled via the recently announced swarm technology) likely hostile military and terrorist targets, at times when we go to DEFCON 3. If we can spot a grape-fruit at 25 miles, a ‘deep-field’ of drones would surely deter or pre-detonate any incoming. Indeed owners might feel it is their patriotic duty to do such, the ultimate sacrifice. Many years ago (45+) I gather in a certain European country there were contingency plans -at a given signal- for major ‘routes’ within that country to be ‘stuffed’ with private cars, commercial trucks, and so on. Driven to designated points by their owners. The purpose was to hold-up -for a short but necessary period the advance of the massed armoured vehicles from their! direction. Or at least to encourage them to move towards ‘selected’ by us…routes where the good guys would be waiting for them! Lateral thinking? I hope so.
PS -I too have no idea if this report is accurate. I have found though over many years of reviewing such, that it is wise to disbelieve on principle any ‘official’ statement from any body whatsoever. It makes the disappointment (or joy!) all the more valid!
At this time I have seen no evidence to confirm the ‘drone’ strike as actually happening.
There is currently no requirement to register any model aircraft – which is what the CAA means when it refers to ‘Drones’ (though they prefer Unmanned Air Vehicle – UAV). The USA has tried but the modellers are opposing that through the courts and frankly the proposed system looks a mess. It would be fair to say UK aeromodellers are horrified by the actions of the lunatic fringe of multicopter fliers that put our hobby at risk.
Registration marking is only of use if you find the aircraft.
Stu, Interesting idea, but then the free wifi in the airport wouldn’t work, or the wifi, Bluetooth or anything else on 2.4GHz in the vicinity of the airport.
The alleged incident occurred over Richmond Park, some 10Km from Deathrow. If you’re talking about interfering with the entire consumer 2.4Ghz spectrum in a 10Km radius of Heathrow and all other airports then you’re wiping our Wi-Fi access for the majority of London.
A farmer recently said to me in the pub, that drones are easier to hit than clay pigeons. I assume he owns the low level airspace over his land and has solved the trespass issue on his own?
The batteries and motors on a drone would be considerably more dense than any part of a bird. Worth bearing in mind as it races into a turbofan!
As to how to get rid of drones around airports, legislation that prohibits their use is of no effect unless the owner can be traced and prosecuted. Due to the realities of people being able to build drones at home, they are essentially an unregistered vehicle. So instead the onus will be on the aircraft manufacturers to protect their wares. Be that via radio jamming within a specific frequency band around the aircraft, or by even mounting a small AESA radar that can detect drones ahead of the aircraft then double up as an electronic attack or even just directed energy weapon to remove said drone from the sky.
Crazy, yeah, I know. But probably more achievable than trying to register every drone in the world.
If I buy a TV from any reputable dealer I have to fill in a form so the TV license detector people can trace me! Why can’t each drone be registered to the owner using a similar low tech form filling exercise? If serial numbers are recorded, then any traceable parts will automatically be returned back to the last recorded owner. Criminal charges for breach of air safety laws can then be pursued in court.
I can see a knee jerk reaction by the powers that be over this incident. The same thing happened with the “Firearms Amendment” act. Pressure from the tabloid press, always eager to sell more rags rather than show the news with some form of accuracy. I don’t fly drones and have no axe to grind, but beware, our benevelent government are only too pleased to install more restrictions to our personal freedoms.
I have recently noticed anonymous individuals in my local area operating camera-equipped drones, my concern is these drones could easily be used to invade others privacy and record them , which in turn could lead to very traumatic effects for the victims if anything sensitive is recorded and sent viral. These drones in my area were operating at the high which they could easily view anyone in their bedrooms thus it came to my attention that something very simple could easily be used for the wrong purposes. i could really elaborate allot on the litany of ill effects sensitive recording could lead to but numerous unfortunate examples are already
present. Therefore i believe very strict legislation should be in place on drone usage, like some banks that require a unique password every-time to enter an account there should be a similar system in place for drones thus tracking the activity and easily rooting complaints.