Slashdot Mirror
Game of Drones: As US Dithers, Rivals Get a Head Start
Amanda Parker writes Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are a hot ticket in Silicon Valley, but U.S. government dithering over regulations has given overseas companies a head-start in figuring out how best to exploit them. Global spending on drones could add up to close to $100 billion over the next decade, with commercial uses — from farming and filming to pipelines and parcels — accounting for around an eighth of that market, according to BI Intelligence. But for years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the authority largely responsible for regulation in the United States, has dragged its feet, only last month issuing draft rules on who can fly drones, how and where. It's likely to be a year or more before the regulations are in place — good news for companies operating outside the U.S. and looking to build a business around drones.
I don't know, this sounds like something good for US companies. US companies are not allowed to compete with each other yet (so there is no race to be first), but they do get to sit back and watch companies in other countries make all the mistakes first, then get to implement their businesses based off those cautionary tales.
It's likely to be a year or more before the regulations are in place — good news for companies operating outside the U.S. and looking to build a business around drones.
Is that good news, really? I'm not sure I see why - if drones are unregulated enough in your country for you to start your business, what difference does it make what the US does?
In fact, is it possibly even bad news? Might potential investors see the US as "leading the way" by regulating/dithering against drones, and that might put them off investing in companies in countries where there is currently little/no regulation?
It's likely to be a year or more before the regulations are in place
So what's the current situtation? Is it unregulated, or is commercial drone flying blanket banned?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
different rules for different folks.
The US is very flexible when it comes to aviation regulations. When you hear on the news "No flight plan was filed..." it is because not flight plan is required for most flights. Aircraft are allowed to fly where they want most of the time (500ft away from objects, unless congested areas). Other countries are more constrained with current manned aircraft systems, so it is easier to control where the manned systems operate, keeping them away from the unmanned systems.
Now the UAS community wants to mix it up. Flying manned and unmanned aircraft in the same airspace, will be a challenge. Keeping them separated will take special processes and procedures. Quantified right of way rules, operating in see (sense) and avoid situations. Today the only technology that will keep UAS and manned aircraft systems separate are the eyeballs in the pilot/operators heads.
Then there are all kinds of considerations beyond that. Maintenance is a big one. The batteries in drones are similar to phone batteries. From the factory, they run for a day, but after a year of regular use, they don't have the same capacity, and your typical quad copter has only one mode when the batteries die, and it isn't a glide mode.
How about coordination with other operators. The big wreck on the freeway needs a EMS helicopter to evacuate a victim, but there are 6 UAS systems (3 TV stations, 2 newspapers and a dude with his for the heck of it) filming the carnage. How do you tell the UAS systems to get out of the way?
So to make all this work, there are operator training items to consider, maintenance requirements, communications requirements, accident reporting considerations, insurance and stuff most folks haven't thought about. If you think the FAA can knock that out in a weekend, you are fooling yourself. Go have a read of the proposed Part 107 regulations. Lots of things are missing, it is just a start, and it is well thought out.
No, we think we have learned. We have not.
Requiring the population to get on bended knee for permission to do things slows the rate of technological advancement, leading to more deaths in the long run as tech lags more and more, like compound interest building up.
It's a mathematical triviality to show the FDA and other business-unfriendly practices lead to magnitudes more deaths than these save by preventing some snake oil from getting to market too fast. All savings of lives so far pale to what would be saved if tech was 10 or 20 years ahead of where it is.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
BTW, I recognize the unfortnuate political impossibility of doing this. One dead person in front of a camera for politicians to cry over is worth more than 100,000 lives saved because some heart medicine was not delayed by a few years.
his is a world of idiots, by idiots, and for the idiots.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Ahm, China has a pretty significant domestic terrorism problem. It also has a rather significant 'robber baron' problem with local business and police forces, which is little more than terrorism in the hands of wealthy people rather than poor.
"China" meddles heavily with the middle class anyway, given the problems with corruption and pretty much anyone with enough money can use state power to deal with rivals, pesky workers, or land owners who have stuff they want.
Well, to be fair, the US doesn't get involved in Tibet nearly as much as China does.
And they do have a Muslim terrorist problem, they just handle it differently. Google "Uyghur Muslim" for more information.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Looks like the FAA already has regulation in place for what you can and can not do with drones. Popping over to their site, while they do not have huge amounts of it, they do seem to have some pretty clear rules already in place. So I can only assume that what the piece is talking about is new regulation that is laxer, opening up commercial use that is currently prohibited.
Glancing over the current rules, commercial enterprises are currently barred for using drones to move persons or cargo for compensation in general airspace. The license also requires submitting engineering and quality assurance about the system they will be using, so the drones + command system + maintenance routines all have to pass an inspector.
There is a separate certificate that allows for such transport if it is in controlled/low risk spaces.
For an immature technology this sounds pretty reasonable. Insurance is not a good solution yet since underwriters still have to get onboard and that only kicks in AFTER someone has been hurt, so a bit of preventative 'prove you are not a public danger' restrictions for commercial entities makes sense. I could see people being unhappy about the 'no passengers or cargo' rule, but that gives some pretty good breathing room for development before higher mass applications start ratcheting up the potential damages.
If aviation were regulated, when Wright brothers were building plane, would they have even bothered? Having to pay lawyers to file applications with Aviation authorities, would they have been able to afford the plane itself?
Same question about Ford and other early automobile-makers... We've surrendered important liberties in exchange for illusory relief from, mostly, imaginary problem.
Yeah, yeah, the same old Libertarian ramblings...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.