Surveillance Balloons
Written by Ofek Sinai
In recent years we have witnessed an enormous increase in the popularity of drones and unmanned aircraft systems (UAVs), for both commercial and private use. Among the variety of commercial uses for drones, as well as for larger UAVs, they are also used for aerial surveillance and reconnaissance purposes. Many of the customers who are interested in those capabilities are security forces such as the military and police, but also private organizations such as security companies and even individuals who use drones simply for surveilling their property. Although demand for these high-tech machines remain high, there are also a number of lower-tech alternatives that can perform similar capabilities.
The solution is based on technology that has existed since the 19th century – the rigid airship (aka Zeppelin). The modern version of the Zeppelin that is manufactured today, is based on an aerostat that carries a sophisticated payload that can include cameras, night vision, and a GPS system. The aerostat can be remotely controlled and is tied to the ground with strong cables. The aerostat is mainly used for surveillance and reconnaissance, mostly for security measures. There are many advantages to the aerostat, most specifically the low energy costs that allow it to stay aloft for days. Moreover, it is much more resistant to winds and weather changes, and it is reliable and safe to use. In addition, the operating and maintenance costs are lower than those of drones. Due to its high reliability and low costs, a wide variety of armies and security forces already use this technology to defend strategic facilities.
Even this “vintage” technology has various new legal, ethical, and social implications. Is the aerostat considered an aircraft according to aviation regulations? Who is liable if a low-flying plane crashes into it? In addition, does this system, with its high-end surveillance abilities, violate rights of privacy? If it does, must the operator of the aerostat have a legal or moral obligation to inform people that they are under surveillance? Also, should systems be allowed to monitor threats through this system, without involving human judgment? And, can a permanently installed aerostat occupy public airspace indefinitely? Most of the questions above are already being considered by the relevant parties.
When Henry Ford created his first automobile, there were very few regulations and initially there were very few cars. Once he achieved mass production, the regulators created widely-accepted regulations. We are facing a very similar stage in the development of aircraft systems, one in which we are searching for smart solutions and regulation in light of the increasing presence of aircraft, and the sophisticated capabilities they hold.
