Leaders | Rules for flying robots

Drones need to be encouraged, and people protected

Tighter regulations will not hamper troublemakers

WHILE TESTING a drone to detect sharks off a beach in New South Wales last year, Australian lifeguards spotted two young men struggling to swim in the violent surf. The drone was dispatched to drop an inflatable pod, which the men used to reach the shore safely. Such civilian drones are saviours that have helped rescue mountain-climbers and people trapped by natural disasters. They carry emergency medical supplies and organs for transplant. Apart from saving souls, civilian drones are becoming a good business. Goldman Sachs, a bank, reckons that the market will be worth $100bn by 2020 in areas such as surveying, security and delivery.

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

The trouble is that drones also endanger life and cause disruption, as they did on January 22nd when Newark airport near New York closed briefly after a drone was seen nearby. Drone sightings at Gatwick airport near London forced it to shut for 36 hours just before Christmas. Three weeks later a drone closed Heathrow, the world’s third-busiest airport, for an hour. These were hardly the first such incidents. Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport suspended flights in 2017 after spotting a drone. Pilots frequently report near-misses. Because they contain metal parts and potentially explosive lithium-ion batteries, drones can badly damage an aircraft in a collision. They are also used to smuggle contraband across borders and into prisons. In Yemen Houthi rebels recently used a drone to attack the VIP podium of a military parade-ground, reportedly killing six soldiers.

As with other dual-use technologies, the task for regulators is to encourage the good uses of drones while preventing the bad. The tension between those aims can lead to contradictory impulses. The FBI warned recently that the threat to America from attacks by rogue drones is steadily increasing. The Federal Aviation Administration, meanwhile, is starting to allow some drones to be flown beyond the sight of their operators, which would greatly boost their commercial use. But some in the aviation industry worry that until drones can be incorporated into the air-traffic-control system, the relaxation of safety restrictions could make accidents more likely.

Rules are needed to ensure that drones are safe, and many countries now have such laws. By and large, professional operators and keen hobbyists will respect them, because they will not want to have their flying permits revoked or their equipment confiscated. Stiff penalties and better information can keep irresponsible users in check. Manufacturers can put safeguards in their drones’ digital-navigation systems to prevent them being flown too high or too close to sensitive sites such as airports.

But it would be a mistake to pile rules on the industry in order to tackle malicious users, who will simply ignore them. Trouble-makers will not register their drones. They will overcome countermeasures by tampering with safety systems or building their own machines from readily available parts.

Rather than wrap the drone industry in red tape, the security forces need to take on the rogue operators directly (see article). The first trick is to identify threats quickly. The best hope, already used by some airports, is three-dimensional radar, which, unlike standard airfield radar, can track a drone flying several kilometres away. This can help airports detect if they have a problem, identify the source of the threat and, most important, rapidly determine when it is safe for flights to resume.

Once a rogue drone has been spotted, it has to be disabled and safely forced down. This comes with risks. Military systems may not be suitable for protecting a big public event or a busy airport surrounded by residential areas. Firing bullets, missiles or lasers risks sending an out-of-control drone crashing into a public place. A better approach is therefore to attempt a “soft kill”, using signal-jamming, which can force a drone to land or seize remote control of it. Signal-jamming has to be careful, though, to ensure that aircraft instruments and airfield-navigation and radio systems are not also affected.

Investment in counter-drone systems is helping overcome some of these shortcomings. Other countermeasures can be added as better ones come along. But a technological race between malevolent drone operators and the forces of law and order is inevitable. As the countermeasures advance, regulators need to remember that their job is to hobble the bad guys without undermining the many beneficial uses of drones.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Hovering saviour or menace?"

Slowbalisation: The future of global commerce

From the January 24th 2019 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

Russia is gearing up for a big new push along a long front line

Ukraine must prepare

Antarctica needs a lot more attention

Melting ice sheets do more than raise sea levels


Some advice to the corporate world’s know-it-alls

With growth slowing, consulting firms like McKinsey need some counsel of their own