Safety in the skies

No post image

Two relatively new dangers to aircraft either climbing out from or on approach to commercial airports have grabbed the headlines in recent months. Aircrew in the UK, continental Europe and the US in particular are reporting increasing instances of near misses with drones or of being distracted or dazzled by high-powered lasers shone from the ground

One reflection of these dangers is to be found in the reports made by pilots of such incidents to their respective representative trade bodies. In the UK, for example, the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) has been approached by several of its members with accounts of such attacks.

​Indeed, says BALPA’s flight safety specialist, Steve Landells, alongside fatigue and the risks posed by flying through potentially hazardous foreign airspace, the dangers posed by drones and by lasers form the majority of the issues being raised by the association’s members today.

​With regard to drones, BALPA is by no means against their development, nor does it doubt their commercial or recreational value. And, in respect to the vast majority of professionals who use them in the course of their work, and who in doing so employ them safely and with the appropriate permissions, as well as in regard to the majority of the hobbyists who fly small drones close to the ground in unrestricted airspace purely for fun, there is no concern. The problems only come from that “very small minority”, says Landells, who either choose to flout the relevant regulations or who fly the drones in ignorance of the potential dangers to aircraft.

​It is not that relevant regulations do not exist. In the UK, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has very clear rules by which drone operators need to abide. The drones must fly no higher than 400 feet and should not be flown more than 500 feet distant from the controller. The drone must remain in sight of the operator, and the drone controller has responsibility for the flight. Any breach of these parameters would see an operator in contravention of Air Navigation Orders, and prison sentences can potentially be applied in cases that sufficiently endanger an aircraft.

A growing threat

In April this year, British police began an investigation when a British Airways flight from Geneva, Switzerland, hit what was believed to have been a drone as it approached London Heathrow International Airport. The A320 landed safely, and no one was hurt, but the collision, coming off the back of a wave of recent near misses, was seen as possibly the first incident of more such collisions with drones to come. However, by the end of April, the thinking seemed to be that it was unlikely to have been a drone at all; one suggestion was that it was no more than “floating debris”. There certainly doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that it was a drone that the aircraft struck.

​Nevertheless, there is absolutely no doubt that the hazard posed by drones to aircraft, commercial or otherwise, is growing. These unmanned aerial vehicles are getting ever larger and ever more powerful, able to fly at much longer range and significantly higher than their predecessor models.

​Drones have always been a danger to helicopters, whose rotors could be smashed in a collision with even a small, comparatively lightweight drone, but light aircraft and increasingly larger commercial airliners are now threatened. While it is unlikely that one of the more common drones flown by hobbyists, that perhaps weigh somewhere in the region of a kilogramme, would bring down a commercial airliner, the potential danger grows as drones become bigger and heavier.

​Moreover, while there is plenty of data available on the damage caused by bird strikes to jet aircraft, there is no such data on the potential impact of a drone collision. And to compare the two is to compare apples and pears, Landells says – no bird incorporates a solid metal battery power pack, for example. Computer simulations have been undertaken of a potential drone impact, and they are useful, but nothing by way of real-world testing. That is something that BALPA is hoping to see in the near future, and is indeed helping to make a reality.

Mitigation and alleviation

So, what is to be done now? According to Landells, at least three different strategies could be adopted. The first, an education and possibly registration programme, could do much to meet the danger posed by those who fly their drones dangerously as a result of the ignorance of the threat they pose. For instance, any purchaser of a drone might be required to register their product online as part of a process of unlocking access to that drone’s controls. Whether registering or not, they could certainly be made aware on the website of the responsibilities that come with flying a drone.

​The US has already chosen to go down the route of registration. It is now mandatory to register a drone in the US. In the UK and elsewhere, the possible scale of the problem is not even known, because there is no authoritative information on the number of drones purchased and/or being flown.

​A second tactic could see manufacturers asked to take more responsibility. Drones sold into the UK already come equipped with geofencing, seemingly preventing their use in restricted airspace. However, Landells notes, the databases on which this geofencing is based are limited in size and quality, and there are ways for operators to override the system. Making geofencing that much more comprehensive and harder to override would be a real step in the right direction, he considers.

​Some success has already been achieved in this area. For example, the largest importer of drones into the UK incorporates in a new drone’s packaging a simple, small pamphlet produced by the CAA that lays out the responsibilities of a drone operator in the UK.

​A third strategy would involve giving the authorities access to real-time information on a drone’s location. This could be achieved fairly simply with today’s readily available tracking technology, he points out, thereby alerting air traffic control (ATC) to any possible danger. It would be important not to overload ATC authorities, but it is an option that could be considered. Having exact positional data of dangerously flown drones would also help in any prosecution case.

​Some combination of the above could turn the tide of the increasing scale of the hazard. Not only are there more and more near misses being reported (one recent near miss was reported at an astonishing 8,000 feet by an aircraft in a holding pattern over London Heathrow), but an ever greater number of Category A (‘Risk of Collision’) air proximity incidents are being reported to British authorities at least. And this might only be the tip of the iceberg. Drones are typically small and tough to spot from a flight deck.

Blind to the danger

The risk from drones is by no means restricted to the UK, Europe and the US. It is a worldwide issue. So too is the threat posed by lasers being shone from the ground at aircraft (typically coming into land). Here, too, UK experience suggests the severity of the problem. Over half of BALPA’s members have reported a laser ‘attack’ over the last 12 months. In 2014, there were 1,440 such reports of lasers being shone at UK aircraft in UK airspace – roughly four a day. (Data for last year is not yet available, but Landells is hopeful of a slight decrease on the 2014 figure.)

​And, as with the drone issue, the problem is probably widely unreported, Landells observes. Not only might an unsuccessful attempt to distract or blind a crew not be seen, but some individuals may choose not to report an incident, in order to avoid the inevitable delay that is caused when police meet with the crew to take a statement, as is required by law (although BALPA has worked with police to create a shorter statement process, and it hopes that this will encourage more crews to report all laser-based incidents).

​A typical laser pointer used for business presentations and the like has no more than about 1 milliwatt of power, ample for that task, and at that strength it is not a concern for the aviation industry. Yet there are now laser pointers openly available for sale with wattages of significantly higher than this that can dazzle at distances of hundreds, even thousands, of feet. One pilot is already the subject of a medical journal study in relation to possible retinal damage suffered when a laser was shone at an aircraft, although such cases are still very rare. The greater hazard lies in a pilot being sufficiently distracted to affect an aircraft’s safety, or more likely suffering a temporary loss of night vision as a result of the laser being shone into the cockpit.

​At least in the UK, high-powered laser pointers are not classified as dangerous weapons, which restricts the police in what they can do to meet the threat. They have no power of arrest or search in relation to those suspected of employing a laser to attack an aircraft, for example.

​Again, the data on the problem is scarce. There is no useful demographic information on those that cause the problem, for instance, or indeed why these people choose to do it. The US has again set a lead on the issue, however. It has run TV campaigns warning of the danger (and the danger of eye damage extends to any passengers affected, as well as crew), while prison sentences have been issued for culprits.

​The answer may well lie in government legislation that prohibits the sale of powerful laser pointers, or that perhaps requires their registration by purchasers (who would presumably need them in some sort of professional capacity). Specially designed glasses and goggles can filter out certain wavelengths of light, but laser pointers can employ different wavelengths, and any goggles that filter out a wide-ranging wavelength of colour are also likely to effect the pilot’s ability to see aircraft instruments. Similar technology is in development for film that can be attached to the inside of flight deck windows, and this avoids the problem of affecting crewmembers’ ability to see the lowlight instruments – but it remains only a partial answer to the problem.

​​A multi-faceted approach Airline pilot representative bodies such as BALPA are far from the only interested parties to be considering how the threat from unsafely flown drones can be countered. Airports Council International (ACI), the industry body that represents airports around the world, has also introduced measures to help safeguard the industry. For example, in January this year, it published – along with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA, of which BALPA is a member) – a joint statement to raise safety awareness among users of remotely piloted aircraft in the close vicinity of airports.

​Together, these bodies called in the statement for greater awareness among and education of drone operators; for states to ensure that all drones operate within clearly defined and known limitations; and for enforceable legal and/or administrative sanctions that can be applied to those who fly drones in an unsafe manner. As of Spring 2016, ACI is also currently preparing an advisory bulletin for its members that will suggest initiatives that individual airport operators can take to mitigate the threat.

According to Angela Gittens, ACI World’s director general, the best course of action for airports looking to mitigate the threat is to develop a plan of action in collaboration with police and civil aviation authorities, one that will facilitate the identification of any drone operator endangering flights and allow for the quick termination of that operation. Moreover, she says, while some protective technology is available to mitigate the problem, further tests should be undertaken to establish ways of taking over control of drones operating too close to flight paths and airports. l

​​Working together
ACI has also played its part in combating the threat from lasers. Airports and carriers have been working on this issue for several years, Gittens points out, often taking similar approaches in terms of collaboration that they have for the threat posed by drones.

​ACI has not, as yet, provided any specific support to its members on the laser issue, but it has strongly supported the International Civil Aviation Organization’s addition to Annex 14 (Aerodromes), which deals with lasers. The annex sets out ICAO’s description of lasers that may endanger an aircraft, and defines three different protected zones that should be established around aerodromes: a laser-beam free flight zone (LFFZ); a laser-beam critical flight zone (LCFZ); and a laser-beam sensitive flight zone (LSFZ).

​Both lasers and drones are worldwide concerns, Gittens points out. “The safety of the travelling public is our number one concern and ACI continues to work with stakeholders to find new ad better ways of dealing with these issues,” she says.

​​Miami reacts to drone hazard
One airport authority that has taken recent steps to combat the threat from dangerously flown drones is Miami-Dade Aviation Department (MDAD), the authority responsible for Miami International Airport (MIA), one of the world’s biggest and busiest airports.

​Earlier this year, MDAD publicly warned of the dangers of drones being flown unsafely too near to the gateway, and announced steps to mitigate the danger. An MDAD statement noted that all drones must be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and that any drone operator must alert the airport or FAA control tower before flying a UAV within five miles of the airport (or, indeed, any other US airport). It also confirmed that, from 30 January this year, it has been prohibited to fly any drone within a mile of any Miami-Dade County airport, unless specifically authorised to do so by the FAA.

​“The recreational and business use of drones has been increasing rapidly,” remarked Miami-Dade aviation director Emilio González. “We want to ensure that the public operates drones safely and responsibly, which means away from airports. A drone interfering with an aircraft in flight is dangerous at best, and the worst-case scenario would be catastrophic.”

​The stance taken by González and MDAD was supported by Florida senator Bill Nelson and Miami-Dade county mayor Carlos Giminez at a press conference at MIA on 11 March, confirming the importance with which the issue is now regarded in the US. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees the FAA, Senator Nelson said that he is working on legislation that would boost federal efforts to research, test and deploy various technologies to keep drones away from sensitive areas, including US airports.

​According to Nelson, a number of companies are developing drone mitigation technologies that would be able to shut down a drone that strays into a no-fly zone, such as an airport.

​Greg Chin, MDAD’s communications director, recalls two localised sightings by aircraft near MIA in the last year of which the aviation department is aware, while the increase in drone ownership across the country is certainly cause for concern. “We don’t have any evidence to show that these two incidents were deliberate in nature, but regardless of the intent, (flying) drones within close range of an aircraft is extremely hazardous and illegal,” he points out.

​MDAD has partnered with the municipal governments that border the airport and the local school district to carry out a public awareness campaign. The campaign began with that press conference at MIA on 11 March, just before the US Spring Break vacation for local schools.

​MDAD’s campaign partners are also posting information regarding drone safety on their websites, social media channels, and community newsletters. Plus, MDAD is working closely with the Miami-Dade Police Department to enforce the ordinance that came into effect on 30 January.

Share
.