9. Smart Aircraft: Invasion of the Drones

A typical r/c airplane, like the one in Figure 9.1, consists of an aircraft body, engine (gasoline, electric, or gas turbine), and some sort of wireless remote controller. Most airplane models are driven by propellers; some are powered by small jet engines. Models ranges from small and inexpensive to much larger (7-foot wingspans!) and much more expensive.

Then there are r/c helicopters, like the one in Figure 9.2, which are a tad bit harder to fly but perhaps more versatile. Attach a digital still or video camera to the copter, control it with your smartphone, and you can take really cool pictures or videos from hundreds of feet in the air. That’s probably why r/c helicopters are gaining in popularity among hobbyists and the general public.

The newest type of r/c aircraft, and perhaps the easiest to fly, is the quadrotor helicopter, commonly called the quadcopter. As you can see in Figure 9.3, a quadcopter has four fixed pitched rotors; two rotate clockwise and two counterclockwise, providing remarkable in-flight stability. Quadcopters are most like the drone aircraft currently employed in most civilian situations.

You control your r/c aircraft with a handheld controller unit, like the one shown in Figure 9.4. Some “ready-to-fly” (RTF) models come with their own controllers; others include a radio receiver so you can use your own controller. All control signals are sent via radio frequency (RF) signals (in either the 72MHz or 2.4GHz bands), and let you control the craft’s rudder, elevator, throttle, aileron, and more.

You can purchase r/c planes and copters from Toys R Us or your local or online hobby shop. Some more toy-like models cost under $100, while true hobbyists will spend well in excess of that, particularly for models with more powerful engines, sophisticated controllers, and photo/video shooting capability.

Yes, it does. Since a drone is, by definition, any type of UAV, if you have an r/c aircraft, you have a drone. In fact, many r/c manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon and re-labeling their hobbyist aircraft (especially those with built-in cameras) as drones.

As an example, consider the Parrot Bebop Drone, shown in Figure 9.5. (Yes, the word “drone” is right in the product’s name.) This popular little quadcopter includes a built-in computerized global positioning system (GPS) navigation system that enables it to hover in flight and automatically return to its launch location. It also includes an onboard high-definition (HD) camera and creates its own Wi-Fi hotspot so you can control it with your smartphone or tablet, or its own optional controller. The Parrot’s first-person view (FPV) capability means that you see what it sees in flight. The basic unit sells for $499.

That said, today’s more advanced drones are subtly and significantly different from hobbyist aircraft in a number of ways.

First of all, the most advanced drones today are moving toward autonomous or semi-autonomous operation. While external operator control is still common, automatic systems are increasingly being used to launch and land the craft, and to perform simple operations while in flight. Some drones employ GPS technology to enable autopilot modes.

Second, commercial and military drones are typically larger than hobbyist aircraft and often purpose-built. A drone used by the military to launch missiles at an enemy target is far removed from an r/c airplane designed for fun flying.

Third, commercial and military drones have much longer ranges than do hobbyist aircraft. They can not only fly further on a single charge or tank of gas, but they can also be controlled from a much greater distance. Whereas most r/c craft can fly only as far as the land-based pilot’s visual range, commercial/military drones can be flown from thousands of miles away, using a combination of satellite and autonomous control technologies. This lets a home base remotely control drones across an entire city, state, country, or even continent.

In addition to these range classifications, experts divide drones into six functional categories, as detailed in Table 9.2. (Note that some drones function in two or more categories simultaneously.)

The United States military is one of the, if not the, largest supporters of drone aircraft, to date deploying more than 11,000 drones. The military’s drones carry out a variety of missions, from aerial reconnaissance to more controversial remote controlled combat. Reconnaissance drones are outfitted with HD cameras; combat drones are outfitted with missiles and bombs. Some experts believe that drones could eventually replace most manned military aircraft, with the corresponding savings of pilot lives.

The military likes drones for a number of reasons. First, they’re a lot cheaper than traditional aircraft. Two, they can stay aloft longer than manned aircraft—several days at a time, in fact. And third, when one crashes, no personnel are hurt or killed or captured by enemy armies.

The most popular drone in the military’s arsenal is the hulking MQ-1 Predator, from General Atomics, shown in Figure 9.6. The Predator, which has a 27-foot wingspan, is typically armed with AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. These are said to be especially effective at blowing up bad guys.

The Predators (and their larger Reaper cousins) are launched by ground crews near the conflict zone du jour, then operation is handed over to controllers 7,500 miles away at the Nellis and Creech Air Force bases in Nevada. There’s actually a three-person control crew for each drone, each huddled in front of a bank of video screens. One person flies the drone, another monitors and operates the drone’s cameras and sensors, and a third is in constant radio contact with the commanders and troops in the conflict zone. All attack decisions are made manually; there’s nothing autonomous in the decision-making process.

Also popular is the considerably smaller (4.5-foot wingspan) Raven drone from AeroVironment, shown in Figure 9.7. The Raven is used for remote reconnaissance and is more autonomous than the Predator. After launch (which can be by hand), the drone gets its directions via GPS technology and reports back with a live video feed. These smaller drones can fly for days at a time without much if any human interaction.

Not surprisingly, the CIA got into the drone business as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the time, there was an increasing call for improved intelligence gathering, and drone aircraft fit the bill. The CIA’s aircraft in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries started out as a way to spy on suspected terrorist organizations. However, the spooks at the CIA soon graduated to more offensive operations, employing military-grade drones to bomb the bejeezus out of bad guys near and far.

To that end, the CIA uses drones in the Middle East and elsewhere to remove (re: assassinate) alleged terrorist leaders. And anyone in the nearby vicinity, because those Hellfire missiles aren’t really that precise in their targeting. According to The Brookings Institution, for every drone attack that takes out a militant leader, ten civilians are also killed. This has led to the expected outrage from the international community, as well as from groups within the United States. Some view this targeted killing as a blatant violation of international law; others view it as the natural evolution of modern warfare, and one that actually saves the lives of those combatants who no longer have to be present for the killing.

Then there’s your local police force. Now, it’s unlikely that the Danville, Illinois, police department is using missile-armed Predators to take out flagrant traffic offenders. But it is possible that they’re using drones to spy on suspected criminals, monitor Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) operations, and maybe even keep an eye in the sky on traffic problems.

You can understand the appeal. A basic surveillance drone costs a lot less than a police helicopter, and can go places where copters can’t. Drones can also stay in the air longer without refueling or recharging. What’s not to like?

It’s not surprising, then, to discover that close to a hundred local and state police agencies have applied to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to deploy drone aircraft in their jurisdictions. Perhaps more surprising is the growing backlash against the domestic use of drone technology. Local and state lawmakers across the country have passed or proposed legislation severely limiting how and when law enforcement can use drone aircraft. For example, in Charlottesville, Virginia (the first city to place restrictions on drone usage), police are explicitly prohibited from using in criminal trials any information obtained by drones. Other jurisdictions—and even Congress, on a Federal level—have introduced legislation prohibiting drones from conducting targeted surveillance of individuals without a warrant.

So maybe your local cops are spying on you from the sky, and maybe they’re not. It’s an ongoing debate.

For example, energy companies are looking to use drones to inspect the oil and gas pipelines that crisscross the country. Electric companies are also considering drone surveillance of their power lines. (Drones are great for jobs that are too dull, dirty, or dangerous for manned aircraft or human inspection.)

Ranchers are using drones to monitor their livestock. The Bureau of Forestry is using drones to map wildfires, and to assist in search and rescue operations in wilderness areas.

Some real estate agencies are already using simple quadcopters to take aerial photographs of properties for sale. Retailers and food joints, from Amazon to Domino’s, are evaluating drones for their delivery needs.

Hollywood is using drones to record footage for their films, as are big advertising agencies for footage for their commercials. Drones are being used to provide coverage for major league sporting events, including the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. And the musical group OK Go recently employed a drone to record the mind-boggling video for their song “I Won’t Let You Down.” (Check it out on YouTube; it’s wild.)

There are also lots of scientific uses for drones. Drones are currently being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to monitor hurricanes and other meteorological disturbances. Some governments and research facilities use drones for scientific research, especially in severe climates like the Antarctic.

And there’s more to come.

Surveillance drones, on the other hand, are more autonomous. Once launched, today’s surveillance drones, like the Raven, can pretty much operate on their own. They use GPS technology and computerized maps to find and hover near their targets, and automatically send back digital photos or a live video feed. There’s not much the remote teams have to do, other than analyze the photos, videos, and other data sent back by the drone. If the drone needs to move to another location, the control team punches in the new coordinates, but then the drone does the rest.

As drone technology matures, more and more of the in-flight operations will become autonomous. Smarter drones will launch and land themselves, as well as find their targets for either surveillance or attack. More and better built-in sensors will enable drones to deal with real-time obstacles, in the form of weather, enemy fire, even other aircraft in the area. Today, the remote control team needs to pilot drones out of any pending trouble; tomorrow, drones will be able to cope with obstacles themselves.

It’s also possible that combat drones will be able to make autonomous attack decisions. Today, it’s up to someone on the control team to pull the figurative trigger, but smarter targeting software will enable future drones to make those decisions without human interaction. The drone will use facial recognition software to identify key targets, identify other people and property in the area, calculate when the target is acquired and when there’s an acceptable risk of collateral damage, and then, when everything checks out, fire the missiles. No need to subject human beings to these difficult decisions (and resulting PTSD); just let the robots do the killing for us.

If this sounds a little too much like the Terminator scenario for comfort, consider that at a much smaller scale, these kinds of automated attack decisions are already being made. Israel’s Harpy Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle is programmed to recognize and automatically dive bomb any radar signal that isn’t in its built-in database of friendly sources. That enables it to locate and destroy enemy anti-aircraft radar installations, for example—all without any humans involved in the decision.

Autonomous weapons of all sorts are especially troubling. Do we really want robot troops fighting our wars for us? On the one hand, it’ll cut down on our side’s casualties. On the other hand... Well, there’s that whole Terminator thing to worry about. And even if Skynet never comes into being, the morality of automating killing in combat is suspect.

Whether you find robotic combat—either in the air or on the ground—troubling or exciting, it’s something that needs further discussion. Of which, find more in Chapter 10, “Smart Warfare: Rise of the Machines.”

Probably the most talked about commercial application for smart drones is in product delivery. Right now, delivery is a big cost center for businesses that sell things online or over the phone; it’s also a major expense for food delivery businesses. Whether we’re talking a decently paid United Parcel Service (UPS) or FedEx driver, or a minimum wage pizza delivery guy, businesses would love to lower their delivery costs—and automating delivery is one way to do that.

It’s not surprising, then, that businesses as diverse as Amazon and Domino’s are all evaluating the potential use of drone aircraft to deliver their products. One relatively low-cost drone could replace not only current delivery personnel but also their trucks and cars. It’s also possible that drones might be faster and more accurate than the high school kid with a stack of pizzas in the back seat.

For drones to be effective delivery vehicles, they have to be smarter than they are today. Your local Chinese restaurant isn’t going to employ a team of drone pilots jiggling joysticks in the joint’s back room; businesses want to input the delivery address, load up the drone with their product, and let it fly. There’s no sense using drones if you just replace one human employee (the delivery guy) with another (the presumably higher-paid drone pilot).

This points to the need for smarter navigation systems. The drone has to know where a given address is, the best route there, and any potential obstacles in the path. Fortunately, these are all available technologies.

Consider the example of the pizza delivery drone. You call in your order, or place it online, and it’s entered into the system at the pizza joint. When the pizza slides out of the oven, it’s boxed up and carried over to the drone launch area. The pizza is affixed to the bottom of the next drone in line, which is then fed the delivery address from the store’s computer system. The appropriate button is pushed, and the drone lifts off into the night.

The delivery coordinates are in the drone’s computer memory, along with aerial maps of the area. The drone can fly pretty much straight-line to your address, although tall buildings and power lines are part of the mapping system, so the drone knows to avoid these types of obstacles. The drone also is equipped with collision avoidance systems, so if there are any other drones (or birds or low-flying aircraft) in the area, it will adjust its flight path as necessary.

When the drone arrives at your address, it lands or otherwise drops the pizza on your front doorstep, and texts you that your delivery is ready. You’ve already paid in advance via credit card, of course, so all you have to do is open the front door, retrieve your pizza, and wave goodbye to the drone as it flies back to home base.

If this whole scenario sounds a bit farfetched, know that back in 2013, Domino’s in the United Kingdom (UK) tested their own DomiCopter, as they called it. As you can see in Figure 9.8, this was a six-rotor UAV adapted to carry one of Domino’s insulated pizza pouches. Now, the DomiCopter wasn’t much more than a PR stunt designed to cash in on the ongoing dronemania, but it still was a nice proof of concept for drone delivery.

Also testing the drone delivery waters is Amazon, the big online retailer. Amazon is developing what it calls Prime Air, a drone-based delivery service that promises 30-minute delivery times in select locations. As shown in Figure 9.9, the Prime Air drone is an eight-rotor UAV (technically, an octocopter), with enough lift to carry small packages. These battery-powered drones are said to fly at 50 mph with a 5-pound payload, with the necessary sensors and systems to avoid mid-air collisions. Amazon would like to launch Prime Air within the next year or so, although that probably won’t happen due to FAA regulations. (Amazon says that 86 percent of the products in its inventory weigh five pounds or less, making them prime candidates for Prime Air drone delivery.)

Then there’s Google, with its Project Wing. Developed at the company’s top-secret Google X labs, Project Wing is a prototype unmanned delivery vehicle with unique vertical take-off and landing capabilities. This drone sits on its tail and has four rotors—two on the underside and two on the outside, toward the edges of the wings. It’s not a helicopter and it’s not a fixed-wing aircraft; it’s a unique hybrid craft that combines elements of both approaches.

The aerodynamic design isn’t the only thing unique about Project Wing. Google has been paying special attention to how the craft delivers its payload. Landing a drone in an urban or residential neighborhood is problematic, with lots of obstacles (both architectural and human). Google has posited other ways to drop a package from above and settled on winching the package down to the doorstop. The drone hovers in a fixed position while a line is reeled out, lowering the package to the ground, as shown in Figure 9.10. After the package lands, the line detaches and winds itself back into the craft. This eliminates unwanted human interaction with the craft. (Google found that with traditional landing delivery, too many test subjects reached out for the package while it was still attached to the drone—and risked injury from the drone’s rotors.)

Regulation of the airspace in the United States is the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA typically deals with private and commercial aircraft and their flights through the nation’s airways. But drones would fly in those same airways, and there’s the rub.

Current FAA regulations severely restrict the commercial use of drone aircraft, even for research and development purposes. Amazon and Domino’s just can’t launch their drones into the wild blue yonder without the FAA’s approval, and the agency is loathe to give carte blanche approval to what could amount to tens of thousands of commercial drones zigzagging across major cities. The opportunity for collision—with buildings, with other drones, with bigger aircraft, or with people (during landing or takeoff)—is just too great.

Current FAA regulations permit hobbyist drone or r/c aircraft use only when flown below 400 feet and within the operator’s line of sight; anything beyond that is prohibited. Hobbyist aircraft also cannot be flown near airports or other zones with heavy air traffic.

These regulations don’t always keep hobbyists from flying their r/c aircraft where they shouldn’t. The FAA notes up to 25 cases each month of drones reported to be flying above the 400-foot limit, with some flying as high as 2,000 feet in the air. That’s certainly high enough to interfere with commercial flights and represents a growing danger.

How is the FAA dealing with this threat? By increasing their education programs, that’s how. And, boy, that’s sure to work. All they have to do is let more people know that they shouldn’t be flying their r/c craft so high or near airports, and the problem will go away. We’ll see how that works.

That still leaves the issue of commercial drones. The business community wants to use them, but the professional aeronautics community and the FAA aren’t quite so hot on the idea. Pilots in particular are concerned that these small r/c aircraft are difficult to see, and that their operators aren’t properly trained in interacting with larger aircraft. (Pilots operate on the principle of “see and avoid,” where they take proactive action to avoid other craft in the sky; drones can’t really “see” other craft and may be too small themselves to be seen.)

Given the many benefits of drone technology, however, the FAA can’t sit on its hands forever. The agency will be forced to allow the commercial use of drone aircraft; how it regulates said flights, however, is what we don’t know.

The FAA could throw caution to the wind and deregulate all flights by aircraft under a certain size and weight. That’s unlikely, and perhaps even unwise, but it’s certainly an approach that Amazon and Domino’s and their ilk would support.

Another approach is to create specified air corridors or layers of airspace for drone use. This way we’d know where the drones were flying, and other aircraft could stay the hell out of their way.

It’s also possible that the FAA might require transponders or other signaling devices on commercial drone aircraft. This would enable drones to be tracked, which has multiple benefits. (Such as knowing when a drone flies somewhere it shouldn’t.)

For the time being, however, drone delivery awaits FAA approval. That said, it’s likely that there will be some action from the FAA in this area within the next year or so. Amazon and other big lobbyists will certainly be pressuring them to do so.

Now, if you’re piloting a drone, the last thing you want is for it to run into something else in flight. This would, in most cases, quickly end the flight, and not much good comes when an object suddenly drops from a height to the ground. (It’s not the drop that gets you—it’s that stop at the end.)

And it’s not just the drone that’s at risk. Imagine a wayward drone crashing into a schoolyard playground filled with children. Or a drone flying into the jet engine of a commercial airliner. The results could be disastrous.

Obviously, drone manufacturers and operators want to minimize the risk of in-air collisions. This is being accomplished via the use of intelligent collision avoidance systems, employing radar and similar technologies to identify in-air obstacles and then steering around them.

While in-air collisions can be minimized, they can’t be eliminated entirely. Nor can the risk of mechanical failure or weather-related situations, both of which can also cause a rapid fall from the previously friendly skies.

To that end, we come to the issue of who’s responsible when a drone crashes, either into another flying object, the ground, or an unlucky bystander. If an Amazon delivery drone smashes through the roof of your house, who pays for the damages? Amazon, the drone manufacturer, the person piloting the drone, or somebody else?

These are issues that need to be addressed by all concerned parties, including the FAA and (inevitably) the insurance industry. Rest assured, there will be drone-related accidents, and they will cause a big hoodoo in the press, and there will be calls for action to do something about the growing menace from the skies. Getting in front of the issue is necessary.

The possibilities are endless. A terrorist group could hijack a drone and fly it into a civilian target. A teenaged hacker could hijack a drone and claim it as his own new plaything. A tech-savvy criminal could hijack a delivery drone and steal the merchandise being delivered. You get the idea.

Drone security needs to be addressed at the same level as IT-based computer security. No company or organization wants its drones hacked or hijacked, so precautions must be taken in advance to mitigate this risk. In-flight operations must be secure, or everyone is at risk.

Not everyone is enthusiastic about increasing the number of eyes in the skies, however. Many privacy advocates fear that this will dramatically expand the surveillance state, making it all too easy for your local, state, and national government to spy on anyone and everyone they like. (Or dislike, rather.)

Think about all the information that could be collected by a surveillance drone. We’re talking high-resolution photographs, clear enough to read license plates and identify human targets. HD video that tracks a subject’s actions over an extended time frame. Infrared and RF sensors that can peer through foliage and even buildings to detect people inside.

In short, drones can spy on just about anyone anywhere, from a far enough distance that that person will never know it. Sure, the government will only use these birds to track the bad guys—or so they’d have you believe. But what if the government mistakes you for a bad guy, or even thinks that you are a bad guy? Do you really want your every movement tracked by a drone hovering overhead?

The privacy threat is significant enough that big privacy groups are weighing in. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, is concerned that as drone aircraft become cheaper and more widely available, law enforcement agencies may be tempted to carry out persistent surveillance of U.S. citizens.

This is definitely something to be worried about. Just how much surveillance do we want to accept in our society?

To do this, smart structures employ a combination of technologies and disciplines, including materials science, sensors, actuators, nanotechnology, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and something called biomimetics.

Smart structure technology will enable aircraft manufacturers to reduce the aircraft’s total weight, manufacturing cost, and operational costs by integrating a variety of system tasks into the structure itself. We’re talking aircraft (or parts of aircraft) that can morph into different shapes over the course of a flight.

For example, instead of using fixed geometry wings, as is standard today, smart structure technology will enable the use of wings that subtly change shape during different parts of a flight. The wing might shape itself in a way to decrease noise during takeoff and landing, and then reshape itself to decrease drag (and thus increase both airspeed and fuel efficiency) during high-altitude flight.

Smart skin technology will sense changes in temperature, wind speed, and the like, and then feed that information back to the plane’s main computer. The plane can use this information to adjust flight speed, altitude, and similar parameters to minimize both flight time and fuel usage.

Other smart technology will also help in problem diagnosis and ongoing aircraft maintenance. Expect future aircraft to have integrated structural health monitoring (SHM) systems to provide more timely notice of issues and reduce the cost of both inspections and repairs.

One company evaluating such smart cabins is aircraft manufacturer Airbus. The Airbus Concept Cabin, shown in Figure 9.11, breaks away from traditional Economy, Business, and First Class sections to zones within the plane for specific needs—relaxing, working, conducting business meetings, working, playing games, and so forth. The cabin adapts to each passenger’s needs and provides a unique experience for each.

For example, Figure 9.11 shows the Concept Cabin’s bio-morphing seats that mold comfortably to each individual’s shape and size. These seats will be made of lighter, thinner materials that provide more leg space and fit more passengers into the cabin. Sounds grand, even if the more dominant trend is cramming more passengers into an increasingly smaller and uncomfortable cabin space. We can dream, can’t we?