Pilot: Drone operator has no 'skin' in the collision avoidance game

To the Editor:

The Post-Standard editorial for May 11 cheerleading the rapid phase-in of commercial drones was myopic. The editors focused exclusively on positive aspects that would benefit news coverage.

In the mid-80s I accumulated about 900 hours as a single engine flight instructor and about 500 hours flying twin turbine commuter aircraft. With manned aircraft, the rule is "see and be seen."

Most drones would be hard for a pilot to see. The drone operator would likely not be constantly sweeping the sky from left to right as pilots are trained to do. An operator safely on the ground would have no skin in the collision avoidance game.

What about loss of propeller power or total loss of control of a drone? What might it hit or where may it fall? Should there be weight, speed and altitude limits? I watched a BBC news clip where a reporter tried to fly a small drone. He lost control and crashed it.

Many drones have unguarded propellors which could cut up a person. Should they be flown over crowds, school yards or residential neighborhoods?

What kind of training might be required for drone operators? Who will conduct it? Who will certify that operators are competent, as pilots are certified? It is no stretch to see that there will be some who fly drones without training or certification. Who will police the use of drones and what might be the penalties?

Since they are controlled by digital radio signal, there will be folks who for fun or profit will hack into drone control systems to try to take them over. What kinds of weapons might be delivered by a non-military drone? Toxins or a bomb?

What operating range will drones have? What will they do if they fly out of operator control range? Autonomous drones would not have the sensibility of a pilot for constantly varying flight situations. Captain Sullenberger quickly decided the best option was to ditch his powerless jetliner in the Hudson River.

And, what about noise and privacy issues?

There should be no rush to get commercial and privately owned drones into the air.

Garry Nichols

Manlius

Editorial failed to address privacy and civil liberties issues

To the Editor:

It is readily understandable that news corporations would want to use drones to record and report news. The imaging capabilities of drones are mighty impressive.



Yes, drones might "enhance the public's understanding of events." And, true, drones may well have been "used to capture footage of massive demonstrations in Ukraine." (Indeed, drones are ideal for identifying and monitoring demonstrators.)



However, your May 11 editorial, "Journalists have right to use drones, too," under analyzed the issue. Sure, news corporations may seek to automate where they can. But working journalists and photographers probably value the right to be gainfully employed and not be replaced by those robots.



Your editorial criticized the FAA for not licensing news corporations to use drones. But it failed to cite the safety concerns around drones that, given the current regulatory vacuum, the FAA must wrestle with. Or, to enhance the public's understanding, your editorial might have addressed drone-related privacy and civil liberties issues. These are local, national and international.



Several months ago our own Common Council wisely and unanimously passed a resolution banning drones over Syracuse absent adequate regulation. Six states even restrict drone use by law enforcement.



On May 9 the Wall Street Journal reported that this past March a U.S. passenger jet nearly collided with a drone over Florida - a disturbing news item, which as far as I know, the Post-Standard didn't publish.



My hope is that your parent company's eagerness to embrace the drone won't lead you to sidestep covering drone problems. Or to downplay anti-drone agitation - for the past four years focused on the drone war crimes emanating from Hancock's 174th Attack Wing.



Ed Kinane

Member, Upstate Drone Action

Syracuse