Drone Risks

Trespasses Unforgiven

As the nuisance potential of drones becomes increasingly apparent, a whole new market in anti-drone technology is springing up.
By: | March 14, 2016 • 4 min read

Technological advance has provided both consumers and businesses with a variety of shiny new gadgets and services. However, as the rise of cyberattacks has underlined, it has also provided society’s undesirable elements new means of creating nuisance or committing crime.

The growing popularity of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — aka drones — is a case in point. Their powerful video cameras open up a whole new world of photographic opportunities. Insurers and loss adjusters are finding them a valuable aid in claims investigation. Unfortunately, drones are also increasingly intruding on people’s privacy, crashing into buildings and intruding on aircraft flight paths.

Advertisement




The problem of rogue drones is on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) this month called for research by the government and safety regulator the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) into the impact of a drone hitting a plane or helicopter, following a spate of near-misses at Heathrow and other UK airports.

BALPA believes that the impact of a drone colliding with an aircraft could smash the windscreen or, worse, that their lithium batteries could trigger an engine fire.

Even more alarming was the January report “Hostile Drones: The Hostile Use of Drones by Non-State Actors Against British Targets” published by security think-tank Oxford Research Group, which warned that “drones are a game changer in the wrong hands.”

The report assessed the design and capabilities of more than 200 unmanned aerial, ground and marine systems and also how drones had been used by activists, terrorists and organised crime groups.

“Drones are a game changer in the wrong hands.”

“Drones are being used by individuals beyond authorized and accepted use,” the report’s authors concluded. “There is particular concern [they] will be used as affordable and effective airborne improvised explosive devices (IEDs), as well as concern regarding the decentralisation and democratisation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.”

The list of potential targets for flying bomb attacks included foreign embassies, nuclear power stations, a G7 summit or the prime minister’s car. “The UK government, police, military and security services will need to introduce countermeasures to reduce or mitigate the risk of commercially available drones being used for attack,” the report concluded.

Those recommended included the licensing of drones and defenses such as laser systems to protect targets, radio frequency jammers and authorization for the police and army to shoot down any suspect drone.

From Eagles to Bazookas

Meanwhile, initiatives to defend against rogue drones are a mixture of the surreal and James Bond movie. Police in the Netherlands have joined forces with Guard From Above, which describes itself as “the first company in the world to use birds of prey to intercept hostile drones”.

GFA held an international press day earlier this month to demonstrate how trained eagles can be used to snatch a rogue drone in mid-air. This company assures doubters that this “lo-tech solution to a hi-tech problem” is perfectly feasible as the birds’ “incredible visual acuity” enables them to hit the drone without being injured by the rotors.

A more hi-tech solution has been developed by the European aerospace conglomerate Airbus, which last September unveiled its counter-UAV system. Based on a combination of radars, infrared cameras and direction finders, the system can identify possible rogue drones from a distance of up to 10 kilometres (6 miles), determine their threat potential and bring them down if needed.

“Furthermore, the direction finder tracks the position of the pilot who subsequently can be arrested,” Toulouse, France-based Airbus stated. “Since the jamming technology contains versatile receiving and transmitting capabilities, more sophisticated measures like remote control classification and global positioning system [GPS] spoofing can be utilized as well. This allows effective and specific jamming and also a controlled takeover of the UAV.”

Advertisement




More 007-type technology has come from this month’s UK launch of the SkyWall 100 anti-drone net bazooka. Developed by the Northumberland-based start-up OpenWorks Engineering, the concept behind the system is to capture a rogue drone in a net and deliver it intact with a parachute, via a combination of compressed gas-powered smart launcher and an intelligent programmable projectile.

SkyWall 100 is the first release in a planned series of systems; described as a “man-portable handheld launcher that is highly mobile and a cost effective way of dealing with the drone threat.” In the pipeline are SkyWall 200, a semi-permanent device that can be carried by two people and the SkyWall 300, a permanent installation with a fixed mechanical turret.

Each of these initiatives could be contenders for the S100,000 prize offered last November by MITRE Corp for novel ways to detect and identify suspicious small drones and “interdict those that present a safety or security threat”. Participants had until early February to submit a white paper outlining their approach and the most promising entries will be demonstrated early in the fall.

Graham Buck is a UK-based writer and has contributed to Risk & Insurance® since 1998. He can be reached at riskletters.com.

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

4 Companies That Rocked It by Treating Injured Workers as Equals; Not Adversaries

The 2018 Teddy Award winners built their programs around people, not claims, and offer proof that a worker-centric approach is a smarter way to operate.
By: | October 30, 2018 • 3 min read

Across the workers’ compensation industry, the concept of a worker advocacy model has been around for a while, but has only seen notable adoption in recent years.

Even among those not adopting a formal advocacy approach, mindsets are shifting. Formerly claims-centric programs are becoming worker-centric and it’s a win all around: better outcomes; greater productivity; safer, healthier employees and a stronger bottom line.

Advertisement




That’s what you’ll see in this month’s issue of Risk & Insurance® when you read the profiles of the four recipients of the 2018 Theodore Roosevelt Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Award, sponsored by PMA Companies. These four programs put workers front and center in everything they do.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top,” said Steve Legg, director of risk management for Starbucks.

Starbucks put claims reporting in the hands of its partners, an exemplary act of trust. The coffee company also put itself in workers’ shoes to identify and remove points of friction.

That led to a call center run by Starbucks’ TPA and a dedicated telephonic case management team so that partners can speak to a live person without the frustration of ‘phone tag’ and unanswered questions.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top.” — Steve Legg, director of risk management, Starbucks

Starbucks also implemented direct deposit for lost-time pay, eliminating stressful wait times for injured partners, and allowing them to focus on healing.

For Starbucks, as for all of the 2018 Teddy Award winners, the approach is netting measurable results. With higher partner satisfaction, it has seen a 50 percent decrease in litigation.

Teddy winner Main Line Health (MLH) adopted worker advocacy in a way that goes far beyond claims.

Employees who identify and report safety hazards can take credit for their actions by sending out a formal “Employee Safety Message” to nearly 11,000 mailboxes across the organization.

“The recognition is pretty cool,” said Steve Besack, system director, claims management and workers’ compensation for the health system.

MLH also takes a non-adversarial approach to workers with repeat injuries, seeing them as a resource for identifying areas of improvement.

“When you look at ‘repeat offenders’ in an unconventional way, they’re a great asset to the program, not a liability,” said Mike Miller, manager, workers’ compensation and employee safety for MLH.

Teddy winner Monmouth County, N.J. utilizes high-tech motion capture technology to reduce the chance of placing new hires in jobs that are likely to hurt them.

Monmouth County also adopted numerous wellness initiatives that help workers manage their weight and improve their wellbeing overall.

“You should see the looks on their faces when their cholesterol is down, they’ve lost weight and their blood sugar is better. We’ve had people lose 30 and 40 pounds,” said William McGuane, the county’s manager of benefits and workers’ compensation.

Advertisement




Do these sound like minor program elements? The math says otherwise: Claims severity has plunged from $5.5 million in 2009 to $1.3 million in 2017.

At the University of Pennsylvania, putting workers first means getting out from behind the desk and finding out what each one of them is tasked with, day in, day out — and looking for ways to make each of those tasks safer.

Regular observations across the sprawling campus have resulted in a phenomenal number of process and equipment changes that seem simple on their own, but in combination have created a substantially safer, healthier campus and improved employee morale.

UPenn’s workers’ comp costs, in the seven-digit figures in 2009, have been virtually cut in half.

Risk & Insurance® is proud to honor the work of these four organizations. We hope their stories inspire other organizations to be true partners with the employees they depend on. &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]