I\u2019ve been doing research on the commercial drone industry since early 2012, and it never ceases to amaze me how much hype there is.\u00a0 A week doesn\u2019t go by where I find a new fantasy forecast<\/a> or see an announcement on how this or that drone networking solution is \u201cgame changing.\u201d<\/p>\n How real are those claims that drones will one day be filling our skies and delivering packages? Where and when will we see massive industry growth and is that growth dependent on the existence of a drone network?\u00a0 In this post, I\u2019ll go over a few misconceptions, discuss the harsh reality, and offer two lessons learned that I hope will help make the conversation a bit more rational.<\/p>\n The hype<\/strong><\/p>\n Question: How much spin is out there on drone networks?\u00a0 Answer: A lot.<\/p>\n Take this piece, for example: In The Drone Network of Tomorrow (It\u2019s Closer Than You Think)<\/a>. The author wants you to believe that the drone network of tomorrow is a few hurdles away.\u00a0 In this futuristic world, users will remotely dispatch multiple drones right from their offices. They\u2019ll specify the flight path, and the drones will fly there autonomously and collect data. In this world, there will be drones-for-hire stationed at key locations and you will just click on button to summon them at your command. It will be \u201cthe Internet of drones\u201d and it will be accomplished via the LTE network, the same network to which every smartphone is connected today.<\/p>\n Investors buy it.<\/p>\n Read The Big Money Continues to Bet on Drones<\/a>, which discusses Verizon\u2019s recent acquisition of Skyward. Read Airmap\u2019s own take <\/a>on their announcement of $26 million in Series B funding from Microsoft, Airbus, Qualcomm, Yuneec, and Sony, with Microsoft leading the round.<\/p>\n The press buys it.<\/p>\n Read this recent article<\/a> in Recode. It says:<\/p>\n Drones are, after all, flying computers that connect to the internet\u2014connectivity on a drone is often used to share flight information with other drones, report to air traffic control or send aerial imaging back in real time to the operator.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I bought it, too.<\/p>\n In December 2014, I wrote Why Drones Are the Future of the Internet of Things<\/a>.<\/p>\n But since that time I\u2019ve done a lot a research to find evidence supporting industry claims, and the truth is, at every turn I\u2019ve come up empty handed and found many misconceptions.<\/p>\n The misconceptions<\/strong><\/p>\n Many in the industry have worked together to move forward the various Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) projects. UTM refers to efforts to build an air traffic management infrastructure for drones, such as the NASA-FAA UTM project<\/a> and GUTMA<\/a>. Those initiatives are a collaboration between government regulators and private industry partners. At the center of those initiatives is the enablement of routine beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS\u2013sometimes just BLOS) operations for commercial drones. Good. We need that. To see some of that work, download the latest presentations from the 2016 UTM Conference here<\/a>.<\/p>\n While the NASA-FAA UTM initiative may have started out with some simple solutions, it\u2019s now blossomed into an expensive \u201cone-size-fits-all\u201d behemoth that is proposing ways to control flight scenarios that don\u2019t need them\u2014those flights where no data exists showing any risk those operations pose to the NAS or nonparticipants on the ground. That hasn\u2019t stopped UTM participants, along with the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC)<\/a>, though, from suggesting those controls.<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s a good idea that\u2019s gone bad. I am not alone<\/a> in perceiving that many UTM and DAC participants think their charter is to integrate the Internet and the cellular network into the National Airspace System (NAS). The leader of GUTMA thinks his organization can do for drones what\u00a0ICANN<\/a>\u00a0does for the Internet. Face palm.<\/p>\n Now, the snowball effect is these companies (and investors) believe drones are Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices that are going to magically multiply like rabbits once we have a drone network. Truth is, drones aren\u2019t IoT devices; they\u2019re data-gathering aircraft.\u00a0 Yes, they collect data that looks a lot like the data from an IoT device in motion (see my presentation on that here<\/a>), but equating them with IoT devices assumes way too much\u2014like the need for constant connectivity to the Internet, for one. Here\u2019s a clue: Drones from DJI, the dominant market share leader, don\u2019t have it, nor do 99.9% of drones that operate in the NAS today.<\/p>\n The harsh reality<\/strong><\/p>\n So, to put it bluntly, the vision of tens of millions of drones flying in the NAS<\/a> alongside manned aircraft is overstated. Visionaries like to point to the 100,000 or so flights that happen today as the bellwether indicator of what\u2019s to come. They point to the headlines that say package delivery drones will fill the skies as reality. But drone delivery has been seriously debunked<\/a>, and the bellwether argument is a non-sequitur. The vast majority of the flights happening today happen in uncontrolled Class G airspace<\/a>, happen around 200-300 feet above ground level, happen without any automated traffic control interaction, and happen without incident<\/a>.<\/p>\n Also, our research says the growth of drone use by industries will be much more measured than the hyped growth figures that visionaries tout, and the bulk of operations will happen mostly as they do today within visual line of sight (LOS).\u00a0 We don\u2019t see huge volumes for BVLOS operations happening for many, many years\u2014if at all. There are other factors<\/a> hindering drone adoption beside regulations and air traffic control.\u00a0 There are other reasons why companies will stick with incumbent technology like satellites and manned aircraft.\u00a0 We have written much about hype in the drone industry, and if that\u2019s new to you, then you can start your research with this SlideShare<\/a>.<\/p>\n Two lessons to take to heart<\/strong><\/p>\n Regulators and experienced military users know flying drones safely and securely in BVLOS operations is not easy. Because of its complexity, we now have a new term in aviation: Performance Based Navigation<\/a> (PBN). PBN describes requirements for separating aircraft and avoiding collision. PBN is a combination of systems both on and off of the aircraft that affect its ability to navigate. And that takes us to our first lesson.<\/p>\n Lesson 1<\/strong>: Buried in the recent announcement<\/a> of regular BVLOS flights of Aeryon SkyRangers at the Foremost UAS Range in Alberta was the fact that Ventus Geospatial had to meet very stringent criteria<\/a> from Transport Canada (Canada\u2019s civil aviation authority). The requirements prescribe a host PBN including:<\/p>\n I could go on, but you get the point. There\u2019s no uber-integrated automation system for PBN and there won\u2019t be for a long time.<\/p>\n Lesson 2<\/strong>: Major General James Poss writes about his experiences with the early days of managing military drone systems in It\u2019s the Data Link, Stupid<\/a>. He says:<\/p>\n A commercial drone ground relay LOS network would have advantages and disadvantages compared to the Air Force system. Advantages are that existing cell phone tower networks are ideally positioned to provide the backbone for ground relay LOS networks for commercial drones. Cell phone companies have already leased the land, dealt with all the FCC regulatory restrictions and, most importantly, obtained the spectrum that could be used for BLOS drone link operations. They also have world class cyber defense centers.\u00a0 The disadvantage is that today\u2019s providers struggle to get enough bandwidth for existing cell phone coverage as it is, their cell tower antennas point down to cover ground users, vice up to cover drones, and their 4G link reliability won\u2019t be high enough to satisfy FAA BLOS requirements. For something as critical as BLOS drone control, the FAA won\u2019t tolerate \u2018dropped calls\u2019.\u00a0 It\u2019s that reliability thing, again.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He goes on to say:<\/p>\n Problems would remain even with this type of system. Although low bandwidth directional drone links using commercially available spectrum wouldn\u2019t use scarce 4G service spectrum, they would take up physical space on already overcrowded cellphone towers. Directional antennas are expensive and must be positioned carefully to avoid radio frequency interference.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And I\u2019m afraid 5G<\/a> (the next-generation of mobile networks beyond the 4G LTE mobile networks of today) isn\u2019t a silver bullet. Right now, forecasters say 5G adoption will be slow<\/a> and most of that extra bandwidth will be used by consumers for mobile video viewing.<\/p>\n But General Poss raises great points. Why would anyone invest in these systems if they\u2019re riskier than either military drones or manned aircraft, particularly when the regulatory environment is unclear?\u00a0 Just how would the FAA regulate a drone network? If the control portion of the network would be an aviation safety critical system, would the FAA even have the authority to regulate it when it\u2019s the Federal Communication Commission\u2019s charter to regulate cellular communications?<\/p>\n All I can tell you is, Buckle up and stay tuned in. It\u2019s going to be a long bumpy ride.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n
\n