A cornucopia of news, opinion, views, facts and quirky bits that need to be talked about. Join our community and join in the conversation on all matters aviation. The blog includes our weekly round-up of the bits of European aviation you may otherwise have missed – That Was The Week That Was
The UK House of Commons Library published a briefing paper on civilian drones recently. In what was generally a well-researched and unbiased document, the authors covered topics ranging from basic safety rules to the disruptive potential of drones. Of particular note was the chapter on regulatory, technical and operational issues that brought light to a debate fundamental to the future of the drone industry.
The paper brings a new angle on the old debate of the dichotomy between regulators and the drone industry. As opposed to the standard definition of the two as mortal enemies, or at very least polar opposites, the authors describe them as the protagonists in terms of the ‘chicken and egg’ problem.
Those creating drone technology are unwilling to invest until they know what regulations they must conform to, which is reasonable. However, those regulating drone technology are hesitant to form precise regulations without knowledge of the technologies that they are to regulate, which is also very reasonable. Chicken; meet egg.
The safety community is desperately attempting to regulate the environment in which drones operate. A fundamental part of that will need to be a workable model of Unmanned aerial vehicle Traffic Management (UTM). That in turn will call for both a robust registration and ID system (probably central) and for geo-fencing.
An important feature of drone safety will be its detect and avoid capability, which will be a vital part of UTM. The body responsible for British civil aviation, the UK CAA, has also noted that this will be the focus of future drone research. That is also true, and most drones will eventually be able to self-separate, like fish in a school, or birds in the air.
However, who should be responsible for undertaking the research? Most parties are unwilling to step forward.
It is not only the technical side of drone regulation that suffers from an absence of actors taking responsibility.
The briefing paper dedicates a sub-chapter to the issue of privacy, which recent public dialogues on drones have shown to be a significant concern. To satiate this fear, the creation of new privacy laws has been proposed, factoring drones into account. However, why should we dedicate resources into this without evidence to suggest that the pre-existing privacy laws are inadequate?
There is also the issue of who should enforce any drone laws. In the UK, new powers have been proposed to aid the police in enforcing the application of drone laws. Whilst the police are in theory willing to take this task on, the practical application of enforcing drone laws requires research into how to do so. Again, the difficulty lies in finding someone to undertake this research.
It seems that many of the issues holding the drone industry back derive from the relevant parties ‘passing the buck’ and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them, or at least fund the research. Perhaps this is inherent in any form of new industry. After all it is hardly cost effective to, for example, pay for research if someone else might do it instead.
Yet, the ‘chicken and egg’ metaphor extends further than disagreement over which must act first, as drone regulators and ‘regulatees’ cannot exist without the other. Without drones to regulate there would be no regulators, and without regulators the drone market and the sky above it would be in chaos.
Perhaps the message, if there is one, is for the drone industry and the drone regulators to recognise the mutual benefit of cooperation. In the view of the briefing paper, the regulators and the industry must work together to create new regulations alongside new technology. When it all comes down to it, it doesn’t really matter which of the chicken and egg came first, provided there is omelette for breakfast and roast for dinner.
