3 ms·

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

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 Both have been encumbered by nationwide rules that quickly became outdated.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.

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.