Doctored Strangelift (or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Zombie Drone Invasion)

In Brainteaser #203 we asked how the advent of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones as they're more commonly known, will affect aviation and what, if anything, should be done to prevent total chaos in the National Airspace System (NAS). Should drones be regulated and their operators licensed? In what airspace might they be allowed, and should it be legal to shoot them out of the sky during designated seasons with the proper permits? (Or perhaps in any season, if they're headed over the White House fence?)

Readers leapt to the bait like trout to ... whatever it is trout eat, fruit flies, maybe. The first response was from the International Order of Editorial Correctness (IOEC), informing us that "unmanned aerial vehicles" was not the preferred term and requested we refer to them as "unpersoned aerial vehicles." Suspecting North Korean meddling, we immediately declined, less out of a sense of righteousness and more to boost readership. Seemed to work well for The Interview.

Some viewed the issue as the latest fear-of-the-week: "The risk of drones is miniscule," one reader wrote. "The 'drone scare' is another creation of the mass media, a group that is historically paranoid and sensationalist when it comes to any type of aviation. Operation of small quadcopters is already beginning to evolve out of the Wild West phase into something more sensible thanks to industry groups and the AMA."

Not sure what the American Medical Association has to do with this, unless the submitter means Academy of Model Aeronautics, which seems to make more sense.

Comments leaned toward caution when sharing the sky with drones. Here's a sample in a run-on ellipse: "They are an increasing risk" ... "a threat to safety" ... "licensing should be a requirement" ... "operators examined and tested" ... "drone pilots should be certified similar to any other pilot" ... "they need to be knowledgeable about airspace and be liable for their actions."

Didn't take long for liability to enter the discussion.

This reader isn't convinced that lawyers alone will stave off disaster: "It is a matter of time before a drone is sucked up into a jet engine, (and) the result will be catastrophic, but the drone operator will not be held financially or criminally liable." Therefore, the attorney for future plaintiffs continues, "When they are flying, (drones) must be operated by qualified, trained individuals with insurance who are following the law."

Where lawyers go, insurance follows ... or is it the other way 'round? Either way, we're in good hands.

This commenter defined the threat target a bit more clearly: "GA will be forced out of the airspace system if (drone domination) comes to fruition." Anyone using "fruition" in a sentence gets my attention.

And this response narrows the threat even further to specific height: "I don't have a strong opinion, but the idea of encountering a drone at 500 feet AGL is terrifying." If terrifying doesn't elicit strong opinions, not sure what would, but it does bring up the issue of altitude. "Keep 'em below 500 feet and away from airports and it shouldn't be a problem."

This reader wants an even lower drone ceiling with operations nowhere near airports: "No drones above, say, 300 feet nor within, say, five miles of an airport."

But as you'll soon learn, 300 feet wasn't the lowest suggested UAV ceiling. All these numbers cry out for balanced administrative oversight, except no one's sure where to find it.

While admitting the need to regulate drones, several readers cringed at giving the FAA new regulatory authority. This comment sums up several readers' opinions: "Drone operations should be regulated and registered but not necessarily with the FAA. The AMA is already prepared with standards of operation, and a 55-pound weight limit." (It's assumed the 55 pounds is the UAV limit and not the operator's.) "And all should be operated on a line-of-sight basis, not autonomously, and no exemptions on the five-mile limit from an active towered airport unless agreed to by the FAA and AMA." This uber-oversight agency could be called FAAAMAOMG.

Comparing drone encounters to bird threats was a common observation and expressed nicely in this one for the birds: "Look at the damage a 3-5 pound bird can cause to an aircraft. From the safety perspective alone (never mind the potential annoyance factor), these things must be regulated!" It was believed the things to be regulated were drones and not birds until another reader proposed, "I'd rather see the FAA regulate birds. There are some terrible aircraft/bird encounters. Maybe an FAA regulation could solve that problem."

But regulating any new threat to safety is tough when the threat is so hard to see: "Between flocks of gulls and rookie pilots, there is enough to be concerned with on final approach. Small drones, quad-copters, or whatever are hard to see, much less avoid."

Flocking rookies, birds nor drones fazed this dude: "I think of (drones) as marginally increasing my bird-strike hazard. There are likely to be a lot more birds than drones near me for a long time, so I don't worry about it much." Be happy.

Other notable ideas included requiring ADS-B and strobes on drones. Or, "... some radar altimeter that prevented (drones) from getting above 100 feet AGL or some reasonable number. That would make me feel somewhat better." That could be the FAAAMAOMG's motto: "Making Reasonable Pilots Feel Somewhat Better."

In a somewhat cruder use of technology, it seems there ain't no problem that can't be solved with explosives: "It wouldn't hurt if all UAV control consoles (held by the operator on the ground) contained a pound of C4, triggered in the event of a collision with a piloted aircraft. Skin in the game, as it were." Perhaps a tad severe; a half-pound would more than suffice.

Another reader expanded on this theme: "One way to prevent collisions would be to require all drones to carry an emergency destruct explosive charge, which would be automatically activated by any nearby transponder signal. That's pretty extreme, but the expense of this to a drone operator would definitely encourage avoiding proximity to manned aircraft." Exploding drones offers all sorts of entertainment possibilities.

A kinder and gentler techno alternative suggested that drones should "have a transponder-activated system that would immediately kill the drone's power and deploy a small drogue chute for a docile return to Earth should they get too near transponder-equipped aircraft." The futurist then mused about the unintended consequence of a drone under canopy floating into another passing aircraft. But, hey, no solution is perfect.

Whatever the techno solution, this reader deems it vital to read and follow all product instructions before operating above 250 feet AGL: " ... the 250-foot limit would still allow hobbyists and recreational use of smaller devices without creating an overly burdensome system. All (drones) should have warnings and labels printed directly on them to let the users know the dangers, if for no other reason than to remove the excuse of 'I didn't know I couldn't fly my quadracopter over the airport.' "

A good, stern, warning label rarely fails. Works for cigarette packs and stepladders. Think about it. Have you ever seen anyone smoking on that top step? Or operating a BB gun without first donning protective eyewear? Worded correctly, we could label this drone threat to bed.

Once the new drone rules are in effect, one reader believes that whatever agency is tasked with enforcement should "Hang those that violate these rules!" Show no quarter! And as long as he's in a hangin' mood, "Also hang those using lasers!" The reader doesn't specify exactly who those laser users are nor where they're using them -- perhaps, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms to tease the cat -- but the same reader does soften a bit with, "Otherwise allow drone usage for legitimate purposes." And have a nice day.

While a general thread expressed the need to, somehow, regulate UAVs -- who can fly them, where and at what altitudes -- readers struggled with how much regulation is needed. I pin that reluctance on an embedded distrust of FAA meddling. This comment exemplifies that: "I am not offended by drones, but I am offended by the notion that the FAA or any government agency should regulate them."

Reader comments ranged from regulate the hell out of 'em to let's all get along. Here's a sampling:

"If they are in the NAS, they should have an N-number and the operator should have to take knowledge and practical FAA tests appropriate to the types of flying operations planned."

"To me it's simple: If a flying device is in the National Airspace System it must be able to see and avoid. The operator should not be required to have a pilot's license (ultralight fliers aren't), but knowledge of airspace, ATC procedures and the relevant FARs should be required. Until the UAV has as much onboard smarts as your average turkey buzzard, it had better have a panoramic view of the airspace it's in, and the operator be just as much on the hook as the rest of us to see and avoid."

"As the cost comes down and performance goes up, I am very concerned that the sky will be filled with drones piloted by people with no clue about the safety of flight."

"Mandatory UAV licensing will likely deter unintentional infractions. It will not reduce the danger or frequency of intentional flights outside the permitted (airspace)."

And let's get the parents involved in this family-fun activity: "Huge fines are necessary to encourage parents to properly supervise their kids." It's 10 o'clock ... do you know where your kid's drone is?

"More things in the sky means more risk to the things in the sky. It is a big sky, though. I think there is too much made of the additional risk."

Finally, this reader doesn't envy whoever takes on the regulatory tasks ahead: "I don't blame the FAA for foot-dragging on this. The rules and regulations questions all boil down to maintaining safety, and that's essential. But the rules themselves are complex and interconnected, and are written in blood."

With apologies to Stephen Sondheim: