UAV technology is developing with speed that surprises even those who have watched new technologies rapidly emerge. Here's a quick example of what a few hundred bucks will buy you these days in highly capable UAVs.
But then there is government. One of the most obvious uses of UAVs is in mudslides, floods and earthquakes where with cameras and particularly with infrared capability, survivors could be quickly found and saved where otherwise they could not be seen in time. Indeed, as Meier points out, in the recent mudslide in Oso, Wash., (about an hour drive from my home), the UAVs were standing by. But the incident commander (who from numerous accounts was in way over his head so to speak) refused to allow their use. A small town fire department chief can't be expected perhaps to know what a UAV with infrared camera capability can bring to a response. But all it will take is one incident like this for the media to get ahold of where lives are lost because of the ignorance of an ill-equipped incident commander and the whole world will become aware. That's what happened with emergency notification and the Virginia Tech shooting. Suddenly, every school and campus needed text-based notification.
Meier states: UAVs were ready to go following the mudslides in Oso, Wash., back in March of this year. The UAVs were going to be used to look for survivors but the birds were not allowed to fly. The decision to ground UAVs and bar them from supporting relief and rescue efforts will become increasingly untenable when lives are at stake.
While not all emergency management leaders may be on board with UAVs, the FAA certainly should be. Instead of embracing this technology and the promise it holds for revolutionizing so many things (such as package and mail delivery — heck it might save the USPS) the FAA seems intent on taking a buggy whip approach. Not only is it dithering on rule-making required by Congress, it's proposing rules apparently, that would take much of the value out of UAVs — specifically first-person view capability. This makes use of a camera on board the craft sending live signals to the pilot allowing him or her to control the craft from the UAV's perspective, a pilot's view.
It's hard to comprehend what the FAA rule-writers are thinking right now. They approved BP's use of UAVs in the far north of Alaska, and approved seven production companies to use UAVs for video/film production. Do they really think the world is going to line up and ask for personal permission every time they want to fly? Do they really think money won't change hands when real economic value is provided? Do they think, if they have the rules to be highly restrictive, that they have the enforcement capability and FAA police to watch over the millions of kids — let alone forward-thinking emergency management types?
Like I said, I don't know what they are thinking, or if they are, but I hope someone at the FAA has the vision to see not just the risks but the opportunities — including life-saving opportunities — that UAVs present.
