3 ms·

I can see where you're coming from, but I think your proposed system would seriously stunt drones. You assume drones have a pilot, but most of the benefits of d

by ggreer 12y ago

I can see where you're coming from, but I think your proposed system would seriously stunt drones. You assume drones have a pilot, but most of the benefits of drones will be from automated ones. Requiring a human pilot drastically increases drone cost, killing many applications in the cradle. Most delivery services (such as Amazon's proposed system) would be right-out. So would having a drone follow someone on a bike ride or run, carrying supplies or providing light at night. And forget about personal security drones recording encounters, pepper-spraying assailants, and following them until police can catch them. Automated drones would completely change how we live our lives. In contrast, the general aviation community is small and hasn't advanced significantly since the 1950's. The popular engines and airframes are almost the same as they were a half-century ago. Heck, most private planes still run on leaded gasoline. Restricting drones to preserve private planes makes about as much sense as restricting automobiles to preserve horseback riding.

scrumper 12y ago
Every example you've given is, at least in my view, a reason to support the parent's proposal. You're thinking somewhat further in the future than the state of the art, too. Why not follow a regulatory path broadly similar to horses->cars->self driving cars? Let the technology catch up, and legislation can follow as appropriate. The parent makes sense today, and will open up a legal framework for piloted drones which doesn't currently exist (crop dusting, aerial photography, news broadcasting, crowd control, traffic monitoring).
- ggreer 12y ago
  Cars are regulated much less than planes, yet self-driving cars are an excellent example of technology that has been delayed due to risk-averse, slow-to-change legislation. The problem is that while legislators and rule-makers often react quickly when restricting things, they are very loath to repeal restrictions. A work-around is to permit most things by default, then restrict in reaction to specific issues. Two excellent examples of squandered potential are general aviation and amateur radio. Both have been encumbered by nationwide rules that quickly became outdated. (Seriously, Morse code?) I'm very worried the FAA will do the same to drones. After all, that's what they're incentivized to do. They only get fired when someone is killed by a new technology. They aren't commended when millions benefit from it. On the other hand, the FAA could drastically accelerate drone development with one simple rule: Allow cities and states to make their own laws regarding anything less than 10kg flying under 400ft. This includes commercial use.[1] That's it. If local governments want to experiment, let them. 1. Of course there would be the normal restrictions around airports, military bases, etc. Also, temporary restrictions for VIPs such as the president make sense.
frisco 12y ago
I could see autonomous UAVs being handled separately; you're right that I'm assuming that "drones" today have pilots ultimately responsible for them, which I think is in reality true. I wouldn't mean for a certification pathway for UAV operators to exclude autonomous operation, but it's certainly a harder problem. It will probably be similar to current aircraft certification. Small companies have long histories of building and certifying airframes, so I don't buy your argument that it would "seriously stunt" drones. A company that can raise money can go through airframe and type certification. The costs come down in proportion to airframe fabrication and fuel costs. It's one thing to let cities set their own rules for local flights below 400 ft. What happens when a software bug sends you up to 1,000 ft? Accidentally busts Class B airspace? These are similar issues as being seen with autonomous cars and can't be easily waved away.

by ggreer 12y ago

scrumper 12y ago

Every example you've given is, at least in my view, a reason to support the parent's proposal. You're thinking somewhat further in the future than the state of the art, too. Why not follow a regulatory path broadly similar to horses->cars->self driving cars? Let the technology catch up, and legislation can follow as appropriate. The parent makes sense today, and will open up a legal framework for piloted drones which doesn't currently exist (crop dusting, aerial photography, news broadcasting, crowd control, traffic monitoring).

ggreer 12y ago
Cars are regulated much less than planes, yet self-driving cars are an excellent example of technology that has been delayed due to risk-averse, slow-to-change legislation. The problem is that while legislators and rule-makers often react quickly when restricting things, they are very loath to repeal restrictions. A work-around is to permit most things by default, then restrict in reaction to specific issues. Two excellent examples of squandered potential are general aviation and amateur radio. Both have been encumbered by nationwide rules that quickly became outdated. (Seriously, Morse code?) I'm very worried the FAA will do the same to drones. After all, that's what they're incentivized to do. They only get fired when someone is killed by a new technology. They aren't commended when millions benefit from it. On the other hand, the FAA could drastically accelerate drone development with one simple rule: Allow cities and states to make their own laws regarding anything less than 10kg flying under 400ft. This includes commercial use.[1] That's it. If local governments want to experiment, let them. 1. Of course there would be the normal restrictions around airports, military bases, etc. Also, temporary restrictions for VIPs such as the president make sense.

frisco 12y ago

I could see autonomous UAVs being handled separately; you're right that I'm assuming that "drones" today have pilots ultimately responsible for them, which I think is in reality true. I wouldn't mean for a certification pathway for UAV operators to exclude autonomous operation, but it's certainly a harder problem. It will probably be similar to current aircraft certification. Small companies have long histories of building and certifying airframes, so I don't buy your argument that it would "seriously stunt" drones. A company that can raise money can go through airframe and type certification. The costs come down in proportion to airframe fabrication and fuel costs. It's one thing to let cities set their own rules for local flights below 400 ft. What happens when a software bug sends you up to 1,000 ft? Accidentally busts Class B airspace? These are similar issues as being seen with autonomous cars and can't be easily waved away.