VLAB: Drones – the commercial era takes off, but breaking the law is going to blow-up in our faces
2013/03/25 Leave a comment
Last Tuesday, I had the pleasure of attending VLAB: Drones – The Commercial Era Takes Off at Stanford GSB. The event was truly fantastic and the panel was amazing. The moderator was Chris Anderson, former editor at Wired and CEO of 3D robotics. I’m really struck by how much he has become the face of the commercial drone industry. From his appearances on NPR and print media, he’s probably the most recognized drone advocate. He makes some very powerful points. Fueled by Moore’s Law and the cellphone industry supply chain, unmanned aircraft technology is coming and we’ve got to prepare for it. Like it or not, the drone/robotic era is coming–it doesn’t have to be scary–all kinds of things are possible.
VLAB Drones Panel from left to right: Chris Anderson, 3D Robotics; Helen Greiner, Cyphy Works; Zach Schildhorn, Lux Capital; Jonathan Downey, Airware; Matthew Pobloske, BAE
The one theme that deserves the attention of our industry at large, promoted by Chris Anderson, was that many people in our industry are operating in a “legal gray area” (read: violating regulations because they think the regulations are stupid and won’t be enforced) and that operating in the “gray area” is a good thing that will force regulatory movement. Anderson gave two examples of this “gray area.” He talked about how ridiculous it was to be violating export controls by turning Lego Mindstorms into what could be considered a cruise missile guidance system. Later he talked about flying drones in contravention to the FAA regulations governing the use of unmanned aircraft.
The FAA regulations are pretty clear, and let’s stipulate that they are stupid. However they are the rules, and they have worked pretty well for the FAA’s primary goal of keeping people from getting killed by aircraft. Technologists in general and Silicon Valley in particular take a dim view of regulations promulgated under the old order (e.g. Lyft, Uber, AirBnB). I’m not completely outraged when technologists facilitate contract formation between consenting adults, even if local regulation contravene some of the particulars of the contracts. However, let’s be clear that is absolutely not what we’re talking about when it comes to aircraft.
When it comes to aircraft–manned or unmanned–one of the main beneficiaries of regulation is the people on the ground. This isn’t renting your room to some strangers who choose to be there; it is hurtling a heavy object over the heads of people who haven’t consented to be part of an experiment. Our society rightly asks the government to ensure that activities that impose risk on others, especially those that did not consent, be minimized. We need to update our regulations, but aircraft operators need to respect the letter and spirit of the law as it stands. What standards do we have if not the law? If we follow the path of breaking all the rules, someone is going to accidentally kill a sympathetic bystander. Beyond the personal tragedy that will create, that accident will set back our industry and the benefits we can provide to society by a decade.
In Afghanistan, one of my planes almost smacked into a helicopter–but it was the helicopter, not the drone–who had come, without clearance or radio calls, into an active artillery firing ROZ (restricted operating zone–an airspace control measure to make sure that aircraft don’t run into artillery fire). Similarly, the first full sized drone and manned aircraft collision had the C-130 violating airspace control measures around the airfield. Pilots are not infallible and often break the rules. The best drone operators have a different safety culture. Military drone safety culture is one where there is proper approval for everything, because every move will be recorded and second guessed. I hope this culture will permeate the civilian unmanned aircraft community as well.
Although breaking the rules might move us toward our unmanned enabled future a little bit faster, this is an incredibly dangerous path for our industry and our bystanders. The closing thought of VLAB Drones was that unmanned aircraft will eventually make the airspace safer for all users. The panel wondered if this was hyperbole, but it is inevitable when drones have a strong safety culture. Conversely, as long as we are the irresponsible jerks of the air, safety conscious regulators–like the FAA –will be unsupportive of us flying. When we, as a civilian unmanned aircraft industry, can be counted on as strong safety partner, and when general aviation and commercial aviation are learning safety lessons from us, there will be no more foot dragging. We will get our airspace and the drone revolution will finally be here.
In the meantime, seriously, don’t do anything that could kill anyone, please–especially if it is illegal. You will ruin it for the rest of us.
Where are the Ops Companies?
2012/07/08 Leave a comment
Really where are they? Given how many companies are building some form of robot it seems like there should be some proportionally greater number of companies out there forming to implement, service, and operate these robots. Where are they?
Frank Tobe isn’t finding a lot of them forming in his start-up list. Even the RIA seems to have fewer integrators than suppliers. AUVSI has many more Lockheeds and Insitus than VT Services. One could make a case that this is characteristic of the peculiar industries that we’re looking at. The robotic counter example is perhaps the ROV industry which routinely provides the ROV as a packaged service to the off-shore oil and gas industry. But most consumer robotics are still selling to early adopters. Our consumer customers are all people who want tech for tech’s sake, not to mainstream customers that are just looking to solve a problem.
Think about other complex goods in our economy. Computers have a vast cottage industry associated with servicing and maintaining them which is probably as big or bigger than the software industry proper. All vehicle industries whether air, ground, or sea have vastly more businesses in the business of selling the services than engaged in construction of the vehicles–even if constructors do manage to capture a large share of the total revenues of the industry.
I think our industry has a problem. I’ve talked to people at the oil and gas majors and heard straight out that robotics companies are producing robots which have a business case to be used several applications, but they will never be used until a credible organization to is there to provide the robot as a service. It is a bit of chicken and egg, but I think this applies as you go down the chain, not just in large capital projects.
When doing sampling or reconnaissance, customers want actionable data not a fleet of robots or new employees. I know from experience that infantry brigade commanders love having drone imagery of the battlefield, but don’t want to worry about having to support the drone unit, they just want to see the battle. This is equally true in forestry, agriculture, infrastructure, and minerals.
Do I really want to own a cleaning robot? No, I would much rather have a business that comes to my house every week and keeps the place clean whether that business uses humans, robots, or both.
Even in medicine, if I were a hospital operator I’d love to be able to push the risk of owning the robot back onto someone else. If I can pay per procedure and not worry about utilization, maintenance, or obsolescence–I’m much more game to adopt something new.
To date, our industry has done a relatively poor job of making robotics accessible to people and organizations who aren’t willing to organize around robotics and develop organizational competence in robotics. Providing robotics as a service could greatly expand the number of potential customers. I think when we see these businesses start cropping up, we will know that our industry is no longer in its infancy.
Filed under Commentary, Economics, Start-ups Tagged with aircraft, cleaning, development, device, drones, financing, medical, risk management, robotics, surgical, survey, technology, unmanned, unmanned systems