A surprising and unexpected feature appeared on the BBC website this week. Delivery drones that transport healthcare products, particularly those that carry live-saving human blood samples and body parts, have always been well-received and accepted by both the public and media. Compared to delivering pizzas, coffees and Chinese takeaways, a drone for good is elevated to the nth degree. So to read a feature actually criticising this highly specialist market, especially from the BBC, is somewhat a surprise.
Under the headline ‘Northumberland NHS drone trial massive airspace grab’, the article harks back to news that first broke in February. A collaboration between the UK Medical drone startup, Apian Aero and Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, to explore the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to carry chemotherapy drugs, blood samples and other items between hospitals. Surely, this is the ultimate ‘Drones for Good’ practice? How can you criticise such a humanitarian endeavour?
Please Read Article
The BBC claims, “Flight restrictions to allow drones to transport supplies between hospitals is a massive airspace grab that will ground other aircraft.” The feature explains that Apian secured a temporary danger area (TDA) airspace closure for a drone trial between February and May and is applying for it to continue. Yet opponents say it extends far wider and higher than necessary.
Pilots and airstrip owners say the TDA effectively closes two grass airstrips in Northumberland which are used by light aircraft, microlight associations and historic aircraft. An operator of the Stanton airfield near Morpeth, for example, who asked not to be named, said it would cause a “substantial loss of income” to his family’s farm.
This operator comments, “It’s a small farm, it has to diversify to survive, and that’s one of our main sources of diversification. The whole thing is a massive airspace grab and is obviously going to affect a lot of pilots and put our airstrip out of action.”
Stanton Airfield
In response, Apian said it was involved in a “formal engagement process on airspace changes” and no decision had been made. A company spokesperson said it wanted to “engage with as many individuals and groups as possible to hear the feedback and take it on board wherever we can.”
Certainly, critics have a solid argument. Pilots say the TDA blocks air transit from north to south and from the east of the country to the coast. They point out forcing historic aircraft or microlight users to fly over the sea to avoid the TDA is unsafe.
These critics also state, Apian has applied for this TDA to extend to 600ft above ground level, above the tallest known feature, which in parts of the Tyne Valley would reach up to 2,000ft pushing out other airspace users. Yet, the company points out that drones can safely fly at low altitude along a narrow corridor, so stopping other aircraft flying entirely is not necessary.
Apian comments it is “working in collaboration with the CAA to support the development of integrated airspace that allows safe, equitable use for all airspace users” while saying it is “not our intention to close airstrips” and hoped to find a solution to allow both operations to “safely co-exist”.
Yet, the criticism doesn’t end there.
The affected local flying community has also complained that Apian was awarded more than UKP799,000 of public money to run the trial. They argue the limitations of drones mean other carbon neutral options are better value for money and point out NHS supply transport on the ground still had to run during the earlier test.
Innovate UK, which oversees SBRI Healthcare and who awarded the money, said it was aimed at helping “improve patient care and save money while also making the NHS greener”. A spokesperson commented funding decisions were made via “a rigorous process.”
The Highly Controversial “Massive Airspace Grab” Area
The operator of the Stanton airstrip then, perhaps, goes a step too far after pointing out a community concern that Apian “could use the trial as proof of concept without spending its own money and then sell the service to commercial operations like Amazon.”
The problem being Amazon and its previously much vaunted delivery drone promise has collapsed in a heap of humiliation, with some commentators suggesting the company may never get its ten year-old vision off the ground.
In response, Apian said it did not own or operate the drones but was a “healthcare logistics company attempting to prove that on-demand delivery improves patient health outcomes and staff wellbeing”. The company, which was founded by former NHS doctors, was “born from the NHS and focused on the NHS”.
In the past, there was, perhaps a rather cynical view, that for the public to accept drone delivery, first it should be used for humanitarian purpose. This might gently persuade them to accept and embrace other services. From blood samples and kidney organs to Hawaiian pizza and Latte may seem a cynical approach, but even drones for good have a breaking point as this story suggests. It doesn’t matter how humanitarian a drone delivery service may be, a balance between public concerns and saving a life should be found.
The critics argue they are not “opposed to drones in general”, but believe NHS usage will only be viable when technology exists to allow them to operate alongside other aircraft without the need to block off large areas of airspace. They make a valid point.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority, who will decide whether to approve Apian’s latest TDA, said it “did not comment on specific airspace change proposals.”
(News Source: www.bbc.co.uk)
(Top image: Skyports)