on May 20, 2016
For almost two years, researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) have been working on a drone that can set fires while airborne, with the intention of making controlled burns easier. As reported by Gizmag, the team recently carried out real-life testing of their creation, which they say will help reduce the risks facing firefighters by letting them set controlled burns remotely.
The aircraft carries balls of potassium permanganate powder that are injected with liquid glycerol before being launched to the ground. The combined chemicals set off a reaction that ignites the materials within 60 seconds after landing.
Controlled burning lowers the risk of dangerous wildfires by removing built up underbrush that could fuel an out-of-control blaze. This method, called a prescribed burn, has been covered in NFPA Journal® as a critical part of reducing the threat wildfires pose to communities. Currently, firefighters use helicopters and handheld launchers to avoid being too close to intentional burns. It’s thought that drones have the potential to be a more efficient and affordable alternative.
NFPA Journal® has also covered the growing prevalence of drones, robots and other unmanned vehicles as emergency response tools in a 2015 article, Rise of the Machines. Drones will also take center stage during NFPA’s Conference & Expo in Las Vegas during the keynote address. Don’t miss the chance to learn more about how drones, robotics and key analytics are helping to solve today’s fire problems.
Photo courtesy of University of Nebraska-Lincoln
The initial scan of the headline of this article said to me "fire-fighting drone..." and I thought "that's pretty cool."
Then I read the article properly.
I think this needs a lot more thought before it is considered seriously as a viable tool in the arsenal of wildfire prevention teams.
There is no doubt that carefully planned and executed prescribed burns have and will continue to reduce the risk and consequence of wildfire. The arguments against their value and safety are almost as widespread as the arguments for the practice. That is not under debate here.
While we have all seen the explosive growth of the use of UAV (drones) for anything from spying on your next door neighbour, through to spying on (and blowing up) terrorists, and their range of useful applications grow almost exponentially, this may be a step too far, too soon, in my opinion. Notwithstanding the increasing reliability of the technology, and so on, the primary uncontrollable variable in this equation is fire itself.
Yes, there have been mistakes made during manually-lit prescribed fires, as the result of poor planning, poor situational awareness, unpredictability of weather conditions, etc. All of these factors remain when considering using UAV to distribute incendiary pellets into scrub. Add to those, however, the somewhat underdeveloped nature of the technology and lack of reliability, and the whole process becomes a bit scary, in my humble opinion. There is also the question in my mind as to the disconnect between the UAV operator and the environment in which they are working. This is a question of personal skills, which have so far been unproven and are, as far as I am aware, not yet standardised.
Yes, the drone can make it to terrain quickly, where troops on foot would take some time, at a heightened level of risk to individual and group safety. But the drone can also not make it - dropping its load somewhere between its launch point and its intended target. To me, this would be the greatest danger. We know what an uncontrolled wildfire can do.