Slashdot Mirror
Report: Big Issues Remain Before Drones Can Safely Access National Airspace
coondoggie writes The story sounds familiar – while the use of unmanned [aerial vehicles], sometimes illegally, is increasing, there are myriad challenges to ultimately allow them safe access to national airspace. The watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the integration of unmanned aerial systems, as it calls them, in US national airspace (NAS) today ahead of a congressional hearing on the topic. As it has noted in past reports, the GAO said the main issues continue to include the ability for drones to avoid other aircraft in the sky; what backup network is available and how should the system behave if it loses its communications link.
The United States is (or has been) the world leader in many areas of technology, such as computers, Internet, space exploration, and medicine. This happened in part because the government stayed out of the way, at least in the early phases of development. When it starts to clamp down too quickly, that innovation can be stifled, and move to other countries. We are seeing this happen particularly in medicine. Apparently, we aren't all that interested in being the leaders in drone development...at least, other than for purposes of war.
no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence
Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?
Consider, say, Harry Homeowner who is using his hobby drone (say, a 4-pound DJI Phantom) to fly 50' in the air to see if his house's gutters are clogged with leaves. He's line of site, he's flying hundreds of feet below any air space used by "real" aircraft, and he's just using his little flying robot like the fun tool it is. The fact that he's got a tiny camera onboard, looking at his own roof, makes that commercial use, and reason to have the FAA fine him for not having acquired an actual commercial pilot's license? Are you even listening to yourself?
And for that matter, how is the safety of the situation any different if he's doing that, and then Neighbor Bob says, "Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.
That will surely weed out most of the idiots
How? What mechanism do you have in mind that will stop somebody from throwing together $200 worth of parts and flying a nice little camera-carrying quadcopter anyway? The ONLY people you're looking to give trouble to are the ones who will already be informed, and operating with safety in mind. I suspect that your actual agenda is to preserve some piece of the AP market for yourself, at the expense of people willing to run a cheap little machine over a farmer's field or rooftop for pay.
But in practical terms, I'm more interested in your truly strange sense of what makes something suddenly commercial (carrying a camera? really? have you never used or even contemplated the use of a video downlink as a way to make the hobby more fun and more safe?), or why you think that people operating commercially aren't already doing so far more safely than somebody who just clicked "buy now" at Amazon because a little flying-drone-thing looks like fun to play with.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.