Attack of the drones - eye in the sky or public menace?

One way or another, yesterday was all about drones. In the evening I went to see Eye In The Sky, the terrific and tense thriller about an operation by the British, American and Kenyan military to take out a terror cell in a Nairobi suburb. Without giving anything away, drone technology in various shapes and sizes features centrally in the film, which stars Helen Mirren as the British colonel running the operation, Alan Rickman - in his final role - as her boss, and Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul as the US Reaper drone pilot operating out of a metal box in the Nevada desert while politicians from London to Singapore debate the morality of firing a missile to prevent a suicide bombing but which could also cause collateral damage.

It's a brilliant, thought-provoking essay on modern warfare, on the decision making, on the chain of command and the political blowback of the decisions made. Under taught direction by Gavin Hood, Eye In The Sky' articulates how drones aren't just pilotless bombers.

Even when the aircraft and its pilot are continents apart, someone is still responsible for pulling the trigger, even if that turns warfare into a detached video game, policed by politicians and lawyers, rather than generals. As Alan Rickman icily reminds a politician near the end, they might make the decisions, nursing cups of coffee and plates of biscuits in front of a big screen, but they should "Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war."

There's no dispute that drones have improved the effciency of prosecuting war. And while it might still be the ambition of would-be top guns to fly jets into battle rather than sit in front of a screen with a PlayStation joystick, such stand-off weapons do, at least, reduce some of the risk to military lives.

In peaceful applications, drones have plenty of uses: my company, Nokia, was recently involved in the trial of drones to improve traffic management in Dubai, something that will become particularly viable when 5G wireless technology comes into use later this decade; in film and television production, drones have become particularly useful for aerial shots - especially good when filming nature documentaries and you don't want to spook animals with a loud and expensive helicopter; and even Amazon and Dominos Pizza are considering drones for making deliveries. All examples of how drones can work in the right hands.

But in the wrong hands...? Yesterday, as I emerged from Eye In The Sky, news appeared of a British Airways plane being struck by a drone on its approach into Heathrow Airport, after increasing warnings in recent months of the possibility. This wasn't just a close encounter - the Airbus A320, which was carrying 132 passengers, was apparently struck by a drone on its nose.

Thankfully, it landed safely, but God only knows what would have happened if the drone has been ingested by one of the Airbus's engines. Landing a plane is tricky enough, especially on the Heathrow flight path that takes jets from the east to the west side of London, let alone with the instability of a single engine working.

Not long after yesterday's incident reportedly too place, I was in Kingston's Bentall Centre and walked past one of those gadgets-for-blokes shops. Piled high in the entrance was a selection of what the shop categorises as "remote control toys" - drones as cheap as £70. Now, drones at that price are unlikely to reach the sort of altitudes to bother an airline pilot on final approach, but for a few hundred quid more you could buy one that could reach up to 2000ft - about the height commercial aircraft are at over the boroughs of Richmond and Chiswick, five to ten minutes away from landing at Heathrow. Remote control aircraft used to be an expensive hobby conducted by enthusiasts who knew what they were doing. Now, a small aircraft can be put in the hands of people who chose one over buying a puppy or a hoverboard or whatever else was the in-vogue must-have last Christmas.

Speaking about yesterday's incident, Steve Landells, of BALPA, the British Airline Pilots Association, and a former RAF and British Airways pilot, said: "Frankly, it was only a matter of time before we had a drone strike given the huge numbers being flown around by amateurs who don't understand the risks and the rules." Between April and October last year there were 23 near-misses between commercial aircraft and these hobbyist drones in the UK. One incident involved a drone missing a Boeing 777 that had just taken off from Heathrow by just 80 feet.

Despite the threat of up to five years in prison, incidents like this (as well as people shining laser pens into the eyes of pilots) are on the rise. Heathrow, too, seems to be particularly targeted, with large parks like Richmond Park and Osterley underneath the flight path providing plenty of open space for someone to launch a drone. If an irresponsible idiot can do all this just for laughs, what could a terrorist do, given the obsession they seem to have with aviation. As someone who flies in and out of London frequently, I'd rather not die in a ball of flames in Hounslow as a result of some moron in a tracksuit thinking it might be fun to fly their Christmas present into the path of my flight.

Britain's Civil Aviation Authority maintains what it calls the "drone code", which dictates that drones of any kind - professional or amateur - should not be flown above 400ft and should certainly not be flown near planes and airports, usually within a two-mile radius. For pilots, however, the big worry is that drones in amateur or even some professional uses, like film making, are just too small to show up on their anti-collision radar systems, and certainly not on air-traffic control. As, no doubt happened yesterday, by the time a drone is in a position to potentially cause a problem, it is probably too late.

"Much more education of drone users and enforcement of the rules is needed to ensure our skies remain safe from this threat," Landells has said. The British Government says that work is going on with international bodies to develop a stronger regulatory framework. But if rules are going to be ignored by either the ignorant, the anti-social, or those with seriously nefarious intent, then laws need to be toughened, police enforcement needs to be improved, and the penalties made even more punitive than a five-year-stretch. Otherwise the next time a drone and an airline meet, the outcome could be a lot worse than just the chills yesterday's incident sent down my spine alone.