{"id":753,"date":"2017-11-10T18:48:39","date_gmt":"2017-11-10T16:48:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=753"},"modified":"2019-07-23T11:44:08","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T09:44:08","slug":"over-the-counter-drone-defence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=753","title":{"rendered":"Over the Counter-Drone Defence?"},"content":{"rendered":"Clearly, the commercial conference business is big business.\u00a0 Conference organisers try hard to look like they have a stake in the industry that this week they are charging enormous sums for exhibition space in huge barn-like halls. \u00a0It is cut-throat out there.\u00a0 Now, the organising companies, which, should you be in any doubt, do it for commercial gain, want you to think that they are part of the fabric of the industry, rather than a service supplier.\r\n\r\nFor them it is aviation this week, bus interiors next week, but no doubt they want the bus industry to think they are part of the fabric of that industry too.\u00a0 They will have spent months doing surveys, making reports and generally being everywhere inside bus interiors. \u00a0They must be grateful it is not faecal sludge.\r\n\r\nAhead of the annual Countering Drones Global conference, its commercial organisers, the almost oxymoronic Defence IQ, have released their stab at being an industry insider, a Global Market Report that showed remarkably little commercial interest in counter drone solutions. \u00a0<!--more-->For some, that might be a back-to-the-drawing-board moment, but Defence IQ soldier on.\u00a0 To be fair to Defence IQ, they focus on defence, but that is not all that narrow a focus.\r\n\r\nUnsurprisingly, given that it follows a very similar structure to the UK Government\u2019s drone consultation by surveying industry stakeholders, the report came to many of the same conclusions. \u00a0That must be gratifying to the Department for Transport, if not for Defence IQ.\r\n\r\nThe conference, taking place in December at Chelsea Football Club in London, makes no pretences as to its purpose. \u00a0One look at the agenda shows speeches titled: \u201cThe Menace of Drones in the Prison Environment\u201d and \u201cCan We Just Shoot Them Down \u2013 Countering UAVS in Canada\u201d. \u00a0Clearly this is not a conference for UAV enthusiasts.\r\n\r\nThe market report, which came out last month, surveyed a wide and unbiased cross-section of industries. \u00a0Amongst the top respondents came from the airports, construction, and ATM sectors, although participants ranged from academia to government organisations to film studios.\r\n\r\nUsing last year\u2019s survey as a benchmark, the market report aimed to establish whether there has been a negative shift in opinion on drones. \u00a0And to some extent there has. \u00a0When questioned whether drones are likely to cause a major security incident in the next five years, 42.7% of those surveyed responded \u201calmost certainly\u201d, a 7% increase from 12 months ago.\r\n\r\nHowever, when brought into the context of the upcoming conference, 36% had no plans for counter drone technology, whilst a further 25.1% responded that they had no current need for it. \u00a0Similarly, 28% of respondents answered that they had no plan for a counter drone strategies or equipment, a 3% increase from last year.\u00a0 Unfortunately for Defence IQ, there appears to be little link between perceived threat and interest in investing in counter drone technologies or equipment.\r\n\r\nDespite limited interest in technological approaches, the report alludes to a counter drone solution that is almost universally supported: education. Mirroring the UK DfT report, there is an overwhelming consensus that the public are insufficiently informed on drone legislation, with over 85% believing it can be improved. \u00a0It is therefore unsurprising that over half the respondents saw the most likely cause of an incident to be from accidental amateur misuse.\r\n\r\nIn coming to these conclusions, the report highlights the hypocrisy in the Countering Drones Conference. \u00a0Despite the overwhelming opinion of industry \u201cexperts\u201d that the greatest danger is from accidents, the speeches revolve around weaponised drones, illegal use and defence systems.\r\n\r\nThe data from Defence IQ\u2019s study, as well as the UK DfT consultation, suggests that a truly effective countering drone conference would be based on educating the public on drone guidelines. Doing so would reduce the need for the technologies, strategies and equipment that, based on the market report, are already a minority interest, whilst simultaneously boost the drone market.\u00a0 But who wants to go around peddling knowledge and awareness when you can sell cannons that fire anti-drone netting?\u00a0 Perhaps Defence IQ should drop the \u2018IQ\u2019 and just focus on marketing the defence.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Clearly, the commercial conference business is big business.\u00a0 Conference organisers try hard to look like they have a stake in the industry that this week they are charging enormous sums for exhibition space in huge barn-like halls. \u00a0It is cut-throat out there.\u00a0 Now, the organising companies, which, should you be in any doubt, do it [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,18,28,30,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drones-and-uavs","category-safety","category-security","category-unmanned-aircraft-system-traffic-management","category-utm"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/753","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=753"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/753\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":755,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/753\/revisions\/755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}