Drones don’t lie: And neither should the pilot

Drones are an effective, lost-cost tool for first responders to get eyes in the sky during a critical event. They are flourishing in all sectors of the first responder world as acceptance has gained traction and the cost of operating is minimal with a great return on investment.

Drones are flying computers that capture data in various forms including operational location, control station location, altitude, airspeed, imagery collection, and many other points. Not only are drones flying computers they also are mechanical machines with many moving parts and are subject to failure. There is always the possibility of a crash or some unexpected behavior that can occur while flying. It happens.

Was the software updated recently, or was an incomplete or improper preflight check conducted? Possibly. The best course of action when your aircraft (or pilot, more on that later) does something unexpected, or crashes, is to take it out of service and conduct an investigation of what has happened. While investigation sounds like a strong word, it is what is required when the tool/technology does not behave as intended. Did another pilot experience something similar? Ask your team.

Having spent many years flying New Jersey State Police helicopters as a professional, one thing was stressed to all pilots, mechanics, and peers: Be honest and upfront about an accident, incident, busted airspace, or other deviation that had the potential to impact the department or for the safety of others. I preach to clients that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) views Remote Pilots as just that, pilots. Pilots who operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). That comes with an expectation of professional behavior and decision-making.

I have worked with pilots who have “bent metal”, over-temped an engine, and, believe it or not, taxied into a hangar. Those mistakes were obvious and pretty much difficult to avoid attention. It is the unseen damage from mistakes, such as exceeding an airspeed limitation, putting stress on the airframe, or over-torquing an engine that could remain hidden until something catastrophic happens that causes it to be revealed. Earlier aircraft did not have the capability of capturing onboard data points for the maintainers, but that is slowly changing. There was an honesty policy that encouraged pilots to fess up and admit a mistake without fear of reprisal. The safety culture fostered incident reporting, and if you were where you were supposed to be, flying the mission profile in the correct manner, and something happened, well, generally no harm, no foul.

On the flip side, if a pilot was constantly damaging an aircraft or had too many mishaps or incidents, management was correct to sit down with the pilot and conduct an investigation to understand why it was happening. Sometimes the pilots would face grounding until remedial training was completed to correct the deficiency. Sometimes, and in the extreme, a pilot would be dismissed from flight status and recommended to go to work in another unit. No matter the outcome, as professional aviators, we have an obligation to report any unsafe condition, whether we are the cause or not. Failing to do so in this business carries the risk of serious injury or worse, the loss of life, and this includes drone operations. It is that important.

So, why would I publish an article about this topic? Well, for starters, sometimes people do things that may make sense at the time and for their own reasons. Self-preservation, avoiding embarrassment, fear of penalties, and the list goes on. The names and department from this point forward are fictitious, but the details about the incident are real.

When I deliver my classes, I always highlight that transparency and safety are priorities that are just as important as aviation-related and constitutional topics. During initial FAA Part 107 training (drone regulations), I always highlight the importance of transparency and note that the system is a flying computer and will “tell" on the pilot, so it is important to be truthful in the documentation of the flight logs and reporting.

One of my clients, I’ll call them the South Police Department started a drone unit and hired me to provide initial training. All of the students in the drone class were all sworn law enforcement officers. One student in particular was a very senior supervisor, let’s call him Sgt. X. As I do with all my classes, I told them that drones capture more data than students may realize. I also tell all my classes that drones do crash, and things happen that may not be part of the plan. Based on my experience, I tell them to embrace and be open about safety culture.

At the completion of training, Sgt. X scored very high on the FAA Remote Pilot exam, and I thought he had a bright future as a Remote Pilot for the rest of his career. The Southern Police Department Drone Unit was up and running, and they were getting busy answering calls for service. Some time after the course concluded, I received a call from the unit supervisor. He started asking me a series of questions about what kind of data could be recovered from a drone during a forensic analysis. He was looking for information such as date, time, location, and a few other details regarding a flight that occured and was logged into their recording system. Then came the reason for the call. He then told me that Sgt X may have possibly crashed a unit drone but wanted to be sure before confronting him.

As the story goes, Sgt. X had some free time during a shift and requested to fly a unit aircraft. He specifically asked to fly Brand A since it was a new airframe and he wanted to become more familiar with it. He was encouraged, as all of their pilots are, to take the drone out and take as much time as he needed.

During the flight, the Brand A aircraft did something unexpected and crashed. Sgt. X gathered up the drone, wiped the dirt and debris off, and put it away without making appropriate notifications that he had experienced a malfunction and a subsequent crash. After putting the aircraft away, he then brought Brand D out and finished his flight time with that drone without incident.

After completing his paperwork, the Unit Supervisor asked Sgt X how his flight went. Sgt. X volunteered to the supervisor that Brand A appeared to have damage, so he opted not to fly and used Brand D instead. The Unit supervisor was surprised since he was not aware of any damage to Brand A. An investigation was started, and the data from Brand A was downloaded and examined.

On the date, time, and location, Brand A data indicated that the drone flew until a sudden stop, and no further information was recorded. This information coincided with Sgt X’s location on that date and time. Upon checking the flight data of Brand D, the information correlated with Sgt. X’s flight log information showed he did indeed fly that drone on the date, time, and location, but after the times recorded on Brand A.

Obviously, the information as told by Sgt. X about Brand A did not match up with the aircraft flight logs and the damaged drone story. Sgt. X was now looking at a Brady-Giglio (Brady) charge as a result of an internal investigation of the facts. Under Brady, a law enforcement officer found to be untruthful in any testimony or factual investigatory report may have their credibility impeached as a witness by the Court system. If a police officer cannot be a reliable witness or investigator in a case because his credibility is in question, he cannot perform in the position any longer.

The event that Sgt. X falsified now became a potential career-ending mistake. One that someone with his years of service, being a supervisor, the relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things, and the extent he went to cover up his mistake had put him in jeopardy.

When confronted with the evidence that contradicted his version of events, Sgt. X subsequently admitted what had happened and offered to pay for the damage. Sgt. X was demoted to officer, removed from the Unit, and placed in an administrative function for the remainder of his career. He was fortunate to only suffer some humiliation, a pay cut, and not the total loss of a pension he had worked so hard for only to be taken away for a trivial matter.

It is important to vet prospective pilots who will be added to the flight rosters. Besides credibility, misuse of drone technology can result in turning the public off and, just as important, giving lawmakers reason to restrict drone use by law enforcement.

Temperament, attitude, ability to receive constructive criticism, and possessing a safety mindset are all important factors to consider during the interview process. The flight crews must understand that while the equipment seems novel, it is an aircraft that will be operating in the NAS.

People make mistakes, but how we handle a mistake is the most important factor. What happens after the fact is what should be molded into training and lessons learned. The FAA has a Compliance Program issued under FAA Order 8000.373C that takes into account deviations from the rules. But how the deviation is addressed, not necessarily through an enforcement action, is the focus of this order. Coincidentally, pilots are allowed to deviate from any rule or regulation during an emergency. When the emergency has been addressed, the pilot is required to come back into compliance. And as a bonus, a report doesn’t always have to be filed by a pilot unless the FAA asks about it.

When it was all said and done, the investigation also revealed that a recent software update was completed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The update appeared to have had a flaw that was in the process of being evaluated by the manufacturer. A patch was later issued to fix the issue, and Brand A was offering limited repairs to drone damage if any had occurred due to the glitch.

Sgt. X was not aware of this information, and neither was the unit supervisor at the time. All of this could have been resolved with no penalties if Sgt. X had just been forthcoming with the events of that day. As the saying goes, the cover-up is generally worse than the crime.