Page 35 - GCN, June/July 2018

Can the FAA ensure safety without better data?
With the number of recreational
and commercial drones increasing, the risks associated with the unsafe operation of unmanned systems are also growing. But by how much? The Federal Aviation Administration isn’t sure.
That’s because the FAA has
limited information on the unsafe
use of small drones, the Government Accountability Office said. In a May report, GAO added that the FAA’s inability to positively identify small unmanned aircraft systems reported as flying too close to aircraft or airports impedes the agency’s ability to effectively assess the safety of small UAS operations.
The small devices discussed in the report are drones that weigh less than 55 pounds and are typically flown by
pilots who keep the drone in their line of sight. FAA officials said such drones are too small to be picked up on radar, and aircraft pilots or people on the ground who spot them often can’t accurately identify them.
GAO noted that the FAA is taking steps to improve its data. Officials are developing a web-based system where the public can report drones they consider a safety concern. They are also evaluating technologies that detect and identify drones, which could improve the FAA’s data on unsafe use.
In addition, the agency has a number of policies that address the risks related to integrating small drones into the national airspace — including restricted airspace designations, operator and UAS certification,
and user training. Technology tools include sense-and-avoid systems, geofencing and detection via radar, radio frequency, acoustics, and electro-optical and infrared signals. All those tools are at various stages of implementation.
The FAA also has policies for safety risk management but has not followed all its principles when it comes to small drones, according to GAO auditors.
The agency did not, for example, “consistently analyze and assess safety risks in terms of their severity and likelihood,” GAO said, adding that FAA officials told the watchdog agency that in some cases, it “did not have sufficient data to do so.”
For the full report, go to is.gd/ GCN_drones.
— Susan Miller
Participants in the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot Program
North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck, N.D.
Variety of applications. Special focus on exter- nal systems, aircraft system technologies and training requirements.
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Investment Authority, Herndon, VA
Package delivery, emergency management
and infrastructure inspection. Special focus on enabling detect-and-avoid tools, identification and tracking technologies, radar systems, and mapping.
City of Reno, Nev.
Medical supply delivery. Special focus on sup- porting infrastructure, including radar and weather data.
Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, Kan.
Infrastructure inspections, search-and-rescue and remote- area assessments. Special focus on operations beyond visual line of sight in rural communities and creating a drone traffic management system for precision agriculture.
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Okla.
(Page 36)
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, N.C. (Page 34)
Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, Memphis, Tenn.
Package delivery applications and perimeter secu-
rity. Special focus on UAS traffic management and coordination of manned and unmanned traffic.
City of San Diego, Calif.
Border protection, delivery of packaged food, smart city/autono- mous vehicle interoperability and surveillance. Special focus on testing existing and future wireless networks, including FirstNet.
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
Pipeline inspection in remote areas. Special focus on how harsh weather conditions affect drone use.
Lee County Mosquito Control District, Fort Myers, Fla.
(Page 38)
GCN JUNE/JULY 2018 • GCN.COM 35
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM/1105 MEDIA ILLUSTRATION