<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Draw the Line On Drone Use

Potential for catastrophe merits quick action from Congress

The Columbian
Published:

The growing problem presented by the recreational use of drones calls to mind that familiar warning from Mom: “It’s always fun until somebody gets an eye poked out.”

While the unmanned aerial vehicles that are finding increasing favor among hobbyists do, indeed, have the potential to poke an eye out, they also have the potential to generate much more serious consequences. On Aug. 16, for example, the Federal Aviation Administration received reports of 12 incidents in which small drones flew dangerously close to aircraft. That’s 12 reports from across the nation in a single day, bringing the total for this year to nearly 700.

This previously unimaginable danger calls for action — quickly — from Congress. While drones designed for personal use are small when compared with an airplane, they can collide with a propeller, crash into a windshield or get sucked into a jet engine. The results then would range from tragic to catastrophic. “Without common-sense rules, I believe it’s only a matter of time before there’s a tragic accident,” Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said.

Thus far, the headlines have been devoid of such an accident, but irresponsible drone owners have created a multitude of problems. During recent wildfires in California, planes dropping water, on multiple occasions, have been forced to retreat from the scene of a fire because of the number of drones flying about the area. In other instances, a drone has landed on the White House lawn; a drone was used to drop drugs onto a prison yard in Ohio; and a drone struck a woman in the head and knocked her unconscious during a parade in Seattle.

Many municipal and state governments have attempted to address the issue, but most of those restrictions were developed out of concern about governmental spying rather than dangerous intrusions from hobbyists. Now, the pervasiveness of drone use — 700,000 remote-controlled aircraft are expected to be sold in the United States this year — requires action on the national level.

Currently, drones are prohibited from flying within 5 miles of an airport or above 400 feet, but the FAA reports suggest that those regulations often are ignored; pilots have reported drones at altitudes as high as 10,000 feet. Technology to place transponders on each drone to identify its owner — and black boxes to record its flights — is available, but the FAA thus far has been reluctant to require such measures. Similarly, there are technologies for jamming drone frequencies and forcing a safe landing — something that would be valuable for emergency personnel — but most drones are not required to include such technology.

Congress should work to enact these safeguards, understanding that public safety in this case overrides concerns about governmental overreach. Placing further restrictions upon drone use would be unenforceable, a situation that requires measures to be taken at the manufacturing level. And while this would invite legitimate arguments about overregulation regarding every facet of American life, the line must be drawn where irresponsible people endanger others.

Drones, while typically used responsibly and as mere fun and games, have reached that point, and maximizing their potential benefits — for business, for public safety and for recreation — will require some common-sense regulation. Because, to update that old axiom, it’s always fun until a drone brings down an airplane.

Loading...