Issue link: https://let.epubxp.com/i/342119
19 www.officer.com July 2014 Law Enforcement Technology MOBILE UNMANNED VEHICLES Can we all agree? What exactly is a "drone"? A couple months back LET editor Jonathan Kozlowski none-too-subtly revealed his disdain for the term "drone" (a word so freely and at times ominously tossed around these days) in his February 25 blog "I hate drones" on Officer.com. He reflected on the media hype surrounding a term that is often over-simplified or simply misunder- stood (Note, Kozlowski hates the word "drone", not drone technology itself—an important distinction). The FAA classifies "unmanned aerial systems (UAS)" as the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of its associated support equipment, including control station, data links, telemetry, communi- cations and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the aircraft. The "UA" is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via ground control sys- tem, or autonomously through use of an onboard computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary to safely operate the craft. "Strictly speaking, a drone is sim- ply a remote controlled aircraft or boat, if you go by the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster's definitions," says Matthew Schroyer, founder and president of DroneJournalism.org. Schroyer uses his engineering and data journalism background for a National Science Foundation grant to improve STEM education. He argues drone technology has existed for nearly 120 years, but the word "drone" has only been verbalized since the interwar period, when the Royal Air Force began converting the Queen Bee manned air- plane into an unmanned aerial target for trainees. The wood biplanes took to the sky in 1935 and bore either wheels or floats. It was radio-controlled and could fly as high as 17,000 feet and travel a maximum 300 miles at more than 100 miles per hour. "Queen Bee" was retired from the RAF in 1947. In his work at the University of Illinois Schroyer teaches students how to design, build, and deploy small unmanned aircraft systems. "There's nothing in the etymology that suggests drones can only be weapons, and in fact, the majority of research and devel- opment in this area involves removing humans from dangerous situations," he says. Indeed, that is how a number of drones are used today. The lofty vehicles are also useful for gathering information and conducting research— without putting a single body in the sky. Circling around regulation Even drone use that clearly benefits public safety may be called into ques- tion. Last March the FAA directed Eugene Robinson and the Texas EquuSearch Mounted Search and Recovery, RPSearch Services, Inc., to ground its radio-control model aircraft, deeming the operation "illegal". On its website, the FAA prohibits and/or regulates the use of sUAS for commer- cial purposes. The technology is further treated like manned aerial vehicles in that both aircraft and pilot must be certified. The administration states, "To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment's Puma) have been certified for commercial use, and they are only authorized to fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments and public uni- versities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The FAA reviews and approves UAS opera- tions over densely-populated areas on a case-by-case basis." The Texas search and rescue orga- nization has worked in cooperation with law enforcement agencies across the country to assist in missing person cases since 2005. Their craft, from PR Flight Systems, is basically a model aircraft with camera onboard. It can cover a square mile in ten minutes and provides a stitched-together digital map of the area. Texas EquuSearch claims to have found more than 300 people alive, and in other cases have found remains. The service also proves useful for pre- serving evidence. Special Council Brendan Schulman, head of the unmanned aircraft systems practice group at the law firm of Kramer Levin in New York, defended Texas EquuSearch. "We argued it's not illegal to sue a model aircraft for beneficial purpose, because that exact same opera- tion, if it was done for recreational pur- pose, would be fine. I'm puzzled and I don't understand why the agency would say why either the safety or approval framework for that operation changes when you want to do it for a beneficial purpose, especially since these people are not paid." Texas EquuSearch drone operators are not paid, nor are families charged for the service. Schulman argues FAA has long delayed in making up rules for com- mercial or civilian applications. Government agencies, like law enforce- ment, must seek approval to use this technology—a process that may be easier said than done, as seeking limited authorization from the FAA can be a time-consuming, involved process. In another recent case Schulman (who also happens to be a hobby drone builder and model airplane flier) defended businessman Rafael Pirker. Pirker fought a $10,000 fine from the FAA when he used a remotely operated 56-inch foam glider to take aerial video for an advertisement for the University of Virginia Medical Center. This time the case was dismissed. The judge agreed the FAA had overreached by ascribing regular aircraft regulations to model aircraft. What about ENG (Electronic News Gathering)? News organizations stand to benefit from the use of this tech, too. But not everyone is onboard. "Drones are able to complete some fairly sophisticated camera maneuver- ing that previously you could only replicate with tracks, cranes and steady cams," says Schroyer. "What we're really talking about is giving even indepen- …two years ago news- gathering drones were a non-issue. Now they're everywhere. LET_18-23_Drones0714.indd 19 6/25/14 11:58 AM