There is a better way to address security concerns while enabling drone use.
In 1865 Britain introduced the 'Locomotives on Highways Act'. Better known as the 'Red Flag Act'.
The act stipulated that all mechanically powered road vehicles (cars) must:
- Have three drivers.
- Not exceed 4 mph (6.4 kph) on the open road and 2 mph (3.2 kph) in towns.
- Be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag to warn the public.
It took nearly 30 years for this law to be repealed and arguably history would assess the Red Flag Act as ‘overly restrictive’. Through innovative security technology I believe that there is a better way to address legitimate security concerns while enabling drone use.
The Department for Transport said:
‘The UK is at the forefront of an exciting and fast growing drones market. We are seeing drones being used across many of our sectors, improving services, creating high tech jobs and boosting our economy. Drones and their applications are a key opportunity to cement the UK as the place for exciting technology companies to build their business, scientists and engineers to drive innovation, and tech investors to invest – in line with our Industrial Strategy aims and objectives.’
In a little over six years the fledgling drone industry in the UK has grown to over 7,000 commercial drone operators yet now the UK Government are restricting airspace around airports, regardless of the drone size and the frequency of use of the airport and we are introducing mandatory registration for drones with an annual fee. I wonder how many would have begun their journey into this innovate sector if there were barriers to entry at the beginning? It is well known that any type of barrier prevents the adoption of a new technology, it only serves to slow down progress and it may prevent the UK from having its share of the predicted multibillion pound industry in the future. Companies who are at the forefront of innovation in the drone industry, like Amazon, have based themselves in the UK specifically for the reason that we have some of the most progressive regulations for drone use anywhere in the world.
The somewhat pessimistic reporting from the established air users’ organisations is not helping the new drone industry. It is arguably not reflective of the actual risks posed to manned aircraft by drones. By lobbying, these organisations force the Authorities to react in the only way they can, by increasing legislation. The trend to also puts pressure on drone manufacturers is counter-productive and may damage their business model. It should be acknowledged that those who wish to cause harm are not likely to register their drones or abide by the rules, there is already a growing drone-hacker community and companies are now selling hardware to overcome the hard-wired geofencing restrictions in some drones.
Education not regulation is the best middle ground for drone operators and those who are at risk from harmful drone use should be given access to technology to protect themselves.