by Leslie Wolfe
But are they? Both safe and under control? The recent slew of events raises this legitimate concern.
The April incident in Kandahar, Afghanistan, responsible for the loss of four lives, is still being investigated. The US military still owes our Canadian allies an answer, to bring closure to them and much-needed changes in the manner that drones are operated. Three-and-a-half months later, we still have no definitive answers to any of our questions.
Last month's incident in Florida, with twenty dead and sixteen wounded, has broken the pattern of remote, unseen combat mishaps, by bringing disaster to our homeland. No word as of yet about the cause of this mishap from the US Air Force. In this case, the Air Force admits ownership of the rogue drone but has not yet released any findings, or shed any light, into what could have caused the tragedy on Highway 98.
Just last night, again on foreign land, again in Afghanistan, in the isolated, little town of Panjab, forty-two civilians came under a drone attack. Only six of them survived, seriously injured. This time, the mystery is even harder to solve; the survivors' reports did not identify the drone by its markings. No one has identified to which branch of the military the drone belonged. Naturally, no combatant force wishes to take responsibility for this meaningless, devastating act against non-combatant civilians, including men, women, and children. There will probably be a long time before we have any release of information in this case.
There have been enough reports of drones causing serious trouble to prompt some questions. Are we really in control of our equipment? Are these drones reliable enough? Are they as safe as advertised?
One by one, we'll attempt to answer these questions, with the limited knowledge of a news crew.
Control. The Florida incident is related to a drone out of control, or described as such by the numerous eyewitnesses present at the scene. We have explored the scenarios that would cause a drone to be out of control. There aren't many. Human operators, using a joystick and guiding imagery captured by the cameras installed on board, remotely control the drones. The scenario, in which an Air Force pilot, deliberately or in error, slammed the drone into a bus full of tourists, makes no sense. The pilot who was at the controls of the death drone in Florida was not available for comment. Our guess is he won't be available for a while, at least until the Air Force finalizes and releases the findings in this sensitive investigation.
So, what else could have caused the crash? Some kind of malfunction, in either the drone itself, the comlink between drone and operator, or the remote control station. These are the three possible areas to investigate and find potential technical issues that could have been at fault for the incident.
If we're considering technical malfunctions or defects, let's examine the manufacturers' records of quality. There are only a few drone manufacturers. California-based NanoLance has a significant percentage of the defense contracting for the flying doom machines. Having a remarkable quality and reliability record spanning decades, as of late NanoLance disappoints in the more visible areas of consumer goods, such as handheld and in-dash GPS devices.
Consumer reviews, posted on many different venues, are indicating failures in recent models of handhelds, from hardware and software perspectives. While the reported hardware errors were not able to shed much light, due to consumers simply reporting the devices as "broken," the software angle gives a little more insight, such as loss of satellite reception and the inability to re-establish a link; frozen screens, the devices need a restart to be able to resume operations; intermittent defects of all kinds, causing the devices to get stuck in search mode, or not guide properly.
Hmmm . . . not guide properly? Why does this particular defect ring a bell of interest? Speculating here . . . These drones are guided using, among others, the GPS technology developed by NanoLance. The same technology that has been reported to malfunction. Could there be a connection? History will reveal it, not a moment too soon.
Reliability. This is a matter to be fully established after the Air Force releases its findings into the Florida incident, and the first of the Afghanistan incidents, in Kandahar. The key question that needs to be answered is if these were because of pilot error or. technical malfunction. Normally we think of reliability as the capability of a particular device to be physically dependable, somehow assuming this is mainly from a technical perspective. That is not entirely correct. Both the drone and the operator have to be reliable, so that the system comprised of the physical drone, the pilot flying it, and the communications link between them, is reliable in its totality. Furthermore, this drone–comlink–pilot system has to be reliable 100 percent of the time. Ninety-nine percent reliability will not be good enough. Ninety-nine percent reliability is what could have caused the Florida incident.
Safety. Operational safety stems from reliability, with a touch of safety-driven procedures and controls. With our limited knowledge of such procedures and controls, we can't even begin to speculate on how safe they are. However, so far, the safety record of the UAVs doesn't impress anyone. Hopefully, the findings into these incidents will reveal opportunities for added safety features into the operation of robotic aircraft, here, in our own airspace, or anywhere else.
One thing remains certain: as of right now, drones are both unsafe and unreliable, claiming lives of innocent civilians, here, at home, and in combat zones, overseas.
...58
...Wednesday, July 7, 7:19PM
...Starbucks Patio
...Escondido, California
The sun was still high enough to cause a bothersome glare on Alex's cloned laptop screen. She moved around the table a bit, to get rid of the glare and distinguish the needed detail she wanted from the images on the screen. Recalling Tuesday morning, when she had deliberately entered an executive meeting ten minutes late, with the sole purpose of surprising the person who was out to get her, still churned her stomach. She remembered the effort she had to make to walk in there with full confidence and her chin up, knowing that at least one of those present wanted her seriously harmed, enough to drug her and set her up to be arrested and thrown in jail.
She carefully watched the video, insisting on reviewing the minutes just before her entrance, to get familiar with the faces present and their overall demeanors. Unfortunately, from what she could see, neither Sheppard nor Walker had been in the room. Dr. Barnaby had to think of a reason to have the meeting in the company's recreation center gym, the only space large enough that could be fitted with seats facing the entrance. The gym was, on occasions, used for company-wide meetings, although it could barely hold 200 people, not even close to the almost 1,000 on NanoLance's payroll. Those present were quite fidgety, Alex noted. They were restless and concerned, as one would expect from the leaders of a company faced with investigations into the safety of its product, and potential involvement in incidents that had led to numerous deaths.
There it was, the precise moment she had entered the room. The camera, installed on the projector mount, close to the ceiling, only captured her from an angle that was above and behind as she made her way from the door to a seat in the front row. She could pinpoint with precision the moment she had entered the room, as she scrutinized the familiar faces for reactions.
The CFO, Audrey Kramer, just as tired as usual, looked up when Alex entered, then frowned. The frown on her face lingered for a good ten seconds, then faded away. That was too long time for it to have been an accidental or coincidental frown. Could it have been triggered by the rudeness of her being late? It was a possibility. In the case of Kramer's reactions, the results were inconclusive for now. Alex would have to observe Kramer on an ordinary day and figure out if lateness bothered her enough to cause such a reaction.
Angela Prescott's reaction was more troublesome. She had put her hand to her mouth, to disguise her surprise. Alex had not expected the HR fashionista to be involved in this mess. At best, Alex would have considered her the silent and oblivious, yet intimate, partner of Benjamin Walker, looking the ot
her way and ignoring Walker's abusive leadership style, due to the nature of their personal relationship. But no, there it was, genuine surprise at the precise moment Alex had stepped through that door.
Rewinding the video a few seconds, Alex increased the zoom and centered the image on Prescott's face. Not only did her hand jump to cover her mouth, but also her mouth had opened in surprise, just before her hand covered it, her eyes widened and her eyebrows raised. She then composed herself before two seconds had passed but remained fidgety and uneasy for the remainder of the meeting. In her case, the conclusions were clear. Bitch, Alex thought, you wanted me nailed. Well, we'll have to see about that!
Chandler Griffiths was undisturbed by her entrance, showing no reaction at all. With Walker and Sheppard absent from the meeting, this concluded her analysis of the video. Opening her email and connecting through the Starbucks WiFi, she wrote an email to Tom.
Good evening,
Finished video analysis, Prescott is the only one showing a definite reaction. Walker and Sheppard were absent, Kramer inconclusive.
Could we please speed up the extensive background checks into the three remaining on the favorites list?
Thank you.
She hit the send button. The screen refreshed, showing a new email in her inbox.
Hey,
Templeton is five minutes out.
Good luck!
A cell phone, her personal device, chimed from her left pocket. The same message had been texted to her, making sure she got it on time.
This was the signal she had been waiting for at the local Starbucks, sipping from a glazed Frappucino. This particular Starbucks had a favorable location relative to the home of Mrs. Kingsley, AKC registered breeder of Rottweiler dogs. As the message had indicated, Janet Templeton, director of manufacturing quality at NanoLance's Alpine plant, and the author of the anonymous note sent to Dr. Barnaby, was on her way to Mrs. Kingsley's house, heading there to select her next Rottweiler puppy.
Pulling into Mrs. Kingsley's driveway ten minutes later, Alex made sure she was blocking the exit for Janet Templeton's car.
She rang the doorbell and heard a concert of barks and yelps. The breeder owned both parents—proud, imposing Rottweilers, acting protective of their young. After greetings and introductions, she sat down near a small table, across from Janet, ignoring her. She picked up a puppy and allowed herself two minutes of blissful enjoyment of Rottie kisses. Then she remembered what she had come there to do.
"Don't I know you from somewhere?" Alex probed.
"Not sure, maybe; you do look familiar," Janet responded, studying the little Rottie curled up on her lap.
"Do you live around here?"
"Nah . . . in Alpine."
"Oh, near our plant," Alex said.
"Which plant are you talking about?"
"The NanoLance plant. I work for them."
"So do I," Janet said, smiling. "I work at the plant, but I haven't seen you there."
"Nope, I work at corporate."
"Operations?"
"IT, in infrastructure. I'm Alex Hoffmann, director of infrastructure," Alex said.
"Janet Templeton, quality assurance."
They shook hands, both careful not to drop or otherwise disturb the puppies they were handling.
"Too bad they're only six weeks old; I wish I could take her home today," Janet said.
"Yep, same here. But two more weeks will give me enough time to puppy-proof the house, clean it up, and make it really nice for the little one."
"Have you thought of a name?"
"Yes, well, I'm somewhat undecided between Skye and Alma."
"Oh . . . Alma is nice; my last dog's name was Alma. She just died."
"I'm so very sorry," Alex said, "it is, indeed, a nice name. Was Alma a Rottweiler too?"
"Yes. My heart is set on this breed."
The connection had been made and rapport was building fast. They continued small talk on the topic of dogs, and then advised Mrs. Kingsley of their intended choices and pickup dates. They wrote checks with deposits to hold their pups. They discussed behaviors, personality testing, rearing, feeding, training, and everything else there was to discuss between two people passionate about dogs.
"Wanna grab a cup of coffee?" Alex asked, as they were ready to leave the breeder's home.
"Would love to," Janet said.
"Would you prefer something stronger than coffee, maybe?" Alex winked.
"Oh, no, unfortunately, I can't touch any alcohol for another twenty days; I'm on an antibiotic regimen after gum surgery."
"Ugh, that sounds painful," Alex said. "Then we'll stick to coffee. I know a Starbucks around here; I stopped there on my way in."
Minutes later, iced coffee treats in front of them, their casual conversation resumed.
"I think I know where I've seen you before," Alex said, moving on to business, "weren't you in a Walker meeting a couple of weeks back?"
"Ah, yes, you're right, we did meet," Janet said, her face lighting up. "Sorry, I'm really bad with faces. It's amazing how things out of context can affect my memory."
"No need to apologize, I couldn't remember you either, so we're even," Alex said with a warm, sympathetic laugh.
"I guess. Those meetings are hard to endure, and I try to suppress any memory after they end," Janet said, starting to open up.
"Are they usually like that? I thought it was just my beginner's luck."
"No, not at all. You go in there not knowing if you're not going to get your head bit off, and for no reason that makes any sense. It's really stressful, and it's a continuing pattern of stress. You'll see. Tomorrow we have another meeting, and it's going to be just as bad, if not worse. I'm ashamed to say, but after a couple of years of doing this, the only thing I can hope for before these meetings is that he doesn't pick on me for the ritual sacrifice."
"What's his problem? What's wrong with him?"
"He's an idiot with unrealistic demands, that's what he is. He doesn't understand our processes, nor does he want to. He just wants more, more, more, and nothing is ever good enough. I know every leader needs to challenge his organization, but keeping goals achievable is part of the game. A big part of the game. If the goals aren't achievable and people are afraid, that's when problems start. Errors are made and covered up, not fixed. People cut corners, fudge numbers, and make desperate decisions that do not serve any greater good, just buy them some time to figure out an alternate solution."
"Alternate solution?" Alex asked.
"Another job, I mean," Janet explained with a faint smile.
"Are you looking?"
"You're not going to tell on me, are you?"
"Oh, no, absolutely not. You can count on me," Alex reassured her.
"Yes, I'm looking, and so is everyone else from Walker's team. It takes a while though, 'cause we're depressed, exhausted, and in a constant state of crisis. Fires burning everywhere, little consistency, and no consideration for his people."
"How do you mean, fires burning?"
"Figuratively speaking. Emergencies of all kinds, some real, but most of them are imaginary."
"I think I get it," Alex said.
"Today, everyone focuses on cost reduction. Tomorrow, he wants staff reductions. The next day, he wants a new product model to be ready for testing in 90 days. And so on. For example, he wants cost taken out of the product year after year. Every year we have to think how to make these products cheaper by anywhere between 5–10 percent, all barfed up numbers with no foundation in reality.
"Plus these products are not TV sets made in China, for the wide consumer market. Few of our products are consumer products. The military products are under contracts, and there is no need for cost pressures, other than stupid, destructive greed. This hurts me in particular, 'cause I am in charge of quality. How can we deliver an improving quality, if the product is disappearing in front of our eyes due to cost reduction challenges?”
“You’re right,” Alex said, �
��you can’t.”
"And he's a sadistic bastard too, if you haven't noticed yet. He gets his kicks from making people suffer. The moment he sees someone on the verge of breaking down, I swear to you, he's pre-orgasmic or something . . . just watch him tomorrow. We've all noticed that about him, but, regardless, he's a skilled torturer. When you're in his line of fire you will hurt, and you will give him pleasure by hurting, and you will hate yourself for it.
"Wow," Alex said in a soft voice.
"You should see how he does performance appraisals. After each performance appraisal, the bottom 10–20 percent of all teams will be fired without cause and without the reason of poor performance. Even if you reached your goals and made your numbers, you could still be fired. This is a stupid method to manage performance—stupid and dangerous too. No one cares about the company or the product anymore. No one does what's right anymore. Everyone hopes that someone else is on that list of terminations, when next February comes. This method destroys teams, and overall human values. It degenerates, as a method, everything that was at the core of our success as a company.
"He didn't invent this method. Someone else did. Walker is just happily applying it, 'cause it creates pain, uncertainty, and suffering in his people, and he loves that. He calls it a competitive, high-performing environment, 'cause everyone is willing to harm everyone else and do anything to survive. He wants all of us to become just like him."
"HR doesn't do anything about this?"
"Hah," she laughed wryly, "you don't know much, 'cause you're new. There is no human resources department on our side here. You should keep in mind they're not to be trusted."
"Thanks for the heads up," Alex said.
"He's also a liar, our COO Benjamin Walker. I've seen him lie, then fire people to cover it up. The former VP of manufacturing, the one before Dunwood, used to tell him in every operations meeting that cost pressures were too high, and that they impact negatively the quality and reliability of the product, in addition to the employee morale and engagement. Every meeting he said that to Walker, and Walker replied he doesn't want to hear it, 'cause it's nothing but a lame excuse for poor performance.