5 ms·

It's bizarre that it's legal to fly a drone/quadcopter as a hobby, but not if you charge for the services. If there were laws about flying above a certain heigh

It's bizarre that it's legal to fly a drone/quadcopter as a hobby, but not if you charge for the services. If there were laws about flying above a certain height or over people in well populated areas, that would make more sense than just banning commercial use. There are going to be a lot of drone-based businesses soon. I got a DJI Phantom 2 last month and have been amazed at the quality of footage that it can capture with a GoPro. The learning curve is much easier than hand-held stabilizers I've used, like the Glidecam.

evanriley 12y ago
I'm hoping its temporary and a better solution can be found soon. I think most of the fear is the sky being filled with commercial drones, which I think can be solved pretty easily.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's bizarre that it's legal to fly a drone/quadcopter as a hobby, but not if you charge for the services. It is also legal to have sex as a hobby, but not -- in (most of) the U.S., and much of the rest of the world -- if you charge for the services. Actually, there are a lot of things that are legal to do if you aren't charging for a service, but illegal, or at least much more tightly regulated, if you are charging for a service.
- Wingman4l7 12y ago
  Brewing beer or wine also comes to mind.
- baddox 12y ago
  I oppose all those instances.
  - Yardlink 12y ago
    Cooking too? Food safety has bigger risks if you're making 10000 donuts than 1. Restricting everyone equally would put an unreasonable burden on everyday life. Scale is a big reason why there's a difference. Unrestricted commercial drone flights would be much more common than hobby, and would therefore cause much more accidents.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Scale is completely separate from the legal ban of commercial drone operations. I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun. I cannot legally charge $5 to take extremely low quality photos of a field with a 20 gram.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Scale is completely separate from the legal ban of commercial drone operations. Its actually not. While the limit on commercial application doesn't directly limit scale, there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes. One can argue that prohibiting commercial use isn't the most desirable way to influence overall scale, but one cannot -- without willful blindness -- argue that banning commercial use has no impact on expected overall scale, even if it does nothing to directly limit either overall scale or the scale of any particular operation. > I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun. Yes, but how many people will vs. how many will when they can do it for fun or profit?
        baddox 12y ago
        > there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes. That only serves as an argument for regulating large scale drone operations (commercial or not). It doesn't work as an argument for prohibiting all commercial drone operations regardless of scale.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        Its not about the scale of an individual drone operation, its about the aggregate scale of all drone operations when commercial operations are allowed vs. when they are not.
kourt 12y ago
It's very typical to more strictly regulate commercial use of the sky than non-commercial. For human aviators, the progression in licenses is Private Pilot (cannot even charge passengers more than their pro-rata share of expenses), Commercial Pilot (can get paid for banner towing, crop dusting, and aerial photography), and Airline Transport Pilot. Aircraft themselves are subject to increasing regulatory burdens regarding maintenance intervals and documentation depending on whether they are for private use (Part 91), Part 135 (charter), or Part 121 (airline). In broadcasting, amateur radio operators ("hams") are allowed to use the airwaves much more easily than commercial broadcasters. Perhaps this principle does not translate perfectly to drone operations, but the general goal seems to be to protect both individual liberty and consumers of for-profit service providers. (Note that contrary to political rhetoric "government regulation hurts business", the viability of the airline industry depends on safety standards: the market has to be larger than "hardcore daredevils" to justify a fleet of 737's.)
bigiain 12y ago
I don't think it's "bizarre" at all - getting paid _fundamentally_ changes things. Although the "ban commercial use completely" approach is a pretty big hammer to use - as a hobbyist RC pilot who's flown with a camera aboard for some time (http://bigiain.com/Mini-Swift-RC-plane http://bigiain.com/Mini-Swift-RC-plane) I've had _many_ requests to take photos/video for other people, many of whom have offered money for it, and almost _all_ of which would require me to make safety compromises that I probably wouldn't choose to make "just doing it for kicks". And the more money on offer, the more tempting it is and the bigger the risks that might get taken. While _I_ think the risks I take flying that plane in the linked video are reasonable (it weighs ~125g all up, and puts a maximum of about 55W into spinning the prop), I've seen people fly multicopters weighing over 6kg with eight 2000W motors spinning 14inch carbon fiber props in _way_ more public and crowded places than that. I certainly wouldn't choose to do that. And Youtube is full of clips which make me say "Really? You chose to do _that_ _there_? Are you insane?" I think the "easier learning curve" on things like DJI's gear, coupled with it's accessible price - but _also_ coupled with a bunch of people who either haven't thought through the possible consequences, don't care about the consequences, or who think the money they're making means the risk is worth taking - will inevitably lead to bad decisions being made. On the more optimistic side, at least _some_ places (here in Australia, for example), it seems like the authorities (CASA in my case) are trying to take account of the differing nature of different "drones", and at least proposing a graduated approach - a sub 500g craft probably isn't going to need to abide by the came rules as a 6kg+ one. (And, if the lower-bound in their current ruleset stays, sub 100g craft will be classified still as "toys" and not covered by these rules.)
- baddox 12y ago
  > many of whom have offered money for it, and almost _all_ of which would require me to make safety compromises that I probably wouldn't choose to make "just doing it for kicks". And because of that, you're advocating that all commercial drone usage be prohibited? To me, that doesn't follow.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
notatoad 12y ago
if the goal of the commercial use ban is to simply limit the number of things flying around the sky, it makes perfect sense. as soon as you allow drones to be used for commercial purposes, the number of them will skyrocket. a couple of hobbyists flying their toys around isn't going to cause problems, the tacocopter lunch rush could be a big problem.
- johan_larson 12y ago
  You had me at "tacocopter".

evanriley 12y ago

I'm hoping its temporary and a better solution can be found soon. I think most of the fear is the sky being filled with commercial drones, which I think can be solved pretty easily.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> It's bizarre that it's legal to fly a drone/quadcopter as a hobby, but not if you charge for the services. It is also legal to have sex as a hobby, but not -- in (most of) the U.S., and much of the rest of the world -- if you charge for the services. Actually, there are a lot of things that are legal to do if you aren't charging for a service, but illegal, or at least much more tightly regulated, if you are charging for a service.

Wingman4l7 12y ago
Brewing beer or wine also comes to mind.
baddox 12y ago
I oppose all those instances.
- Yardlink 12y ago
  Cooking too? Food safety has bigger risks if you're making 10000 donuts than 1. Restricting everyone equally would put an unreasonable burden on everyday life. Scale is a big reason why there's a difference. Unrestricted commercial drone flights would be much more common than hobby, and would therefore cause much more accidents.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Scale is completely separate from the legal ban of commercial drone operations. I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun. I cannot legally charge $5 to take extremely low quality photos of a field with a 20 gram.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Scale is completely separate from the legal ban of commercial drone operations. Its actually not. While the limit on commercial application doesn't directly limit scale, there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes. One can argue that prohibiting commercial use isn't the most desirable way to influence overall scale, but one cannot -- without willful blindness -- argue that banning commercial use has no impact on expected overall scale, even if it does nothing to directly limit either overall scale or the scale of any particular operation. > I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun. Yes, but how many people will vs. how many will when they can do it for fun or profit?
      - baddox 12y ago
        > there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes. That only serves as an argument for regulating large scale drone operations (commercial or not). It doesn't work as an argument for prohibiting all commercial drone operations regardless of scale.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        Its not about the scale of an individual drone operation, its about the aggregate scale of all drone operations when commercial operations are allowed vs. when they are not.

kourt 12y ago

It's very typical to more strictly regulate commercial use of the sky than non-commercial. For human aviators, the progression in licenses is Private Pilot (cannot even charge passengers more than their pro-rata share of expenses), Commercial Pilot (can get paid for banner towing, crop dusting, and aerial photography), and Airline Transport Pilot. Aircraft themselves are subject to increasing regulatory burdens regarding maintenance intervals and documentation depending on whether they are for private use (Part 91), Part 135 (charter), or Part 121 (airline). In broadcasting, amateur radio operators ("hams") are allowed to use the airwaves much more easily than commercial broadcasters. Perhaps this principle does not translate perfectly to drone operations, but the general goal seems to be to protect both individual liberty and consumers of for-profit service providers. (Note that contrary to political rhetoric "government regulation hurts business", the viability of the airline industry depends on safety standards: the market has to be larger than "hardcore daredevils" to justify a fleet of 737's.)

bigiain 12y ago

I don't think it's "bizarre" at all - getting paid _fundamentally_ changes things. Although the "ban commercial use completely" approach is a pretty big hammer to use - as a hobbyist RC pilot who's flown with a camera aboard for some time (http://bigiain.com/Mini-Swift-RC-plane http://bigiain.com/Mini-Swift-RC-plane) I've had _many_ requests to take photos/video for other people, many of whom have offered money for it, and almost _all_ of which would require me to make safety compromises that I probably wouldn't choose to make "just doing it for kicks". And the more money on offer, the more tempting it is and the bigger the risks that might get taken. While _I_ think the risks I take flying that plane in the linked video are reasonable (it weighs ~125g all up, and puts a maximum of about 55W into spinning the prop), I've seen people fly multicopters weighing over 6kg with eight 2000W motors spinning 14inch carbon fiber props in _way_ more public and crowded places than that. I certainly wouldn't choose to do that. And Youtube is full of clips which make me say "Really? You chose to do _that_ _there_? Are you insane?" I think the "easier learning curve" on things like DJI's gear, coupled with it's accessible price - but _also_ coupled with a bunch of people who either haven't thought through the possible consequences, don't care about the consequences, or who think the money they're making means the risk is worth taking - will inevitably lead to bad decisions being made. On the more optimistic side, at least _some_ places (here in Australia, for example), it seems like the authorities (CASA in my case) are trying to take account of the differing nature of different "drones", and at least proposing a graduated approach - a sub 500g craft probably isn't going to need to abide by the came rules as a 6kg+ one. (And, if the lower-bound in their current ruleset stays, sub 100g craft will be classified still as "toys" and not covered by these rules.)

baddox 12y ago
> many of whom have offered money for it, and almost _all_ of which would require me to make safety compromises that I probably wouldn't choose to make "just doing it for kicks". And because of that, you're advocating that all commercial drone usage be prohibited? To me, that doesn't follow.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

notatoad 12y ago

if the goal of the commercial use ban is to simply limit the number of things flying around the sky, it makes perfect sense. as soon as you allow drones to be used for commercial purposes, the number of them will skyrocket. a couple of hobbyists flying their toys around isn't going to cause problems, the tacocopter lunch rush could be a big problem.

johan_larson 12y ago
You had me at "tacocopter".