At 500, a look to the future

I think the industry may now be standing on the edge of new wave of innovation that goes even further than anything we've seen before. Virtual reality systems are already being used in training, and even in crane operation. In the automotive industry, we appear to be on the brink of widespread automation.

At this year's Bauma, we got a glimpse of the excitement among manufacturers about the potential of virtual reality. In this issue, Rafal Sornek, Hiab's VP for technology and quality development, describes how the company is using a VR system to allow operators to work from their cab. Sornek mentions the potential for driveless forestry cranes to be operated remotely, pointing out it makes little sense to have an operator in the cab of a truck driven by robots.

We are very close to an era of widespread automotive automation. Both Google and Apple are investing heavily in robot vehicles. Ford recently announced it plans to be building driverless cars for ride-sharing services in bulk by 2021. Asked last year on Twitter about his company's strategy, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said pithily, "driverless in 2030 FTW [for the win]".

If the technology is getting good enough to drive a bus by a school, won't it be good enough to drive a crane on a motorway, or even operate it on a job site?

Driverless cranes, operated remotely or by robots, won't be adopted just because the technology is there. But one can see a path by which they may spread and become commonplace. Hiab's solution targets the risk and discomfort of operating cranes in the tough conditions of a forest.

Tower cranes are regularly fitted with hook block cameras to allow them to work blind. Wouldn't it make sense to have the operator working from a comfortable portable office, rather than a cab, with a better virtual representation of his work than that available with standard cameras?

Around the world, fleet owners report difficulties in finding operators to work in remote areas. If the crane can be driven to a mine by robots, and there is a fast enough internet connection, why not employ an operator in Sydney, rather than flying them out to the jobsite?

Benefits like this might drive initial adoption. Once the technology is available, regulators may push it into the mainstream. Accidents are regularly attributed to operator error. If driverless cars are safe than those operated by humans, why not ban drivers? If VR goggles mean an operator doesn't need to climb into their cab, why not remove the risk of a fall?

Will North Editor
wnorth@cranestodaymagazine.com