This "non commercial" film won all kinds of publicity. What he does is what most of us would like to do, but the FAA regs will prohibit this same flight if placed on you tube and monetized, or sold to NYC as a promotional video or for any commercial purpose because it was shot in a city, with major population nearby, and some of the shots appear to be out of line of sight and more than 500 feet up.

AERIAL NYC - RANDY SCOTT SLAVIN - DJI PHANTOM on Vimeo

Eventhough I don't plan to buy such a drone I feel there should be a very strict rules about who can and cannot take shots in these kind of circumstances , a drone malfunctioning when flying over the streets and lots of people might cause car accidents and serious injury to people and even worse, to small children. How cool it might look, lets hope they never will give a free pass to fly as you please to anyone that buys a drone.

Thanks for your response, Noa.

Not too much to worry about from the commercial side. The FAA would prohibit a commercial video company from getting this kind of footage.

A non-commercial guy, though, can do it now so long as he lives by a few rules (which may have been violated in this case).

Now their lies the problem. A non-commercial guy can do it. I would have thought a commercial guy would more likely to have all the right certificates to do it.

There is a big difference in flying a drone in an open field with no houses or people as far as you can see or flying over a big city, the first one I feel everyone should be able to do, the second one only those with a license and a permission. Personally I find what that guy did in that non commercial video quite stupid and high risk, that's like giving a 12 year old the keys of your car.

The FAA's NPRM is a good first step in regulating the commercial use of drones. Those regulations would not have necessarily prevented this amateur from producing this video, which to Donald's point is a bit a$$ backwards.

I've been doing aerial photography from drones for about six years, when I started Jeff from Quadcopters.us was shooting ton's of cool aerial of Whitefish Montana, everyone loved it and the following year people posted tons of aerial videos of beautiful rural areas. After about six months, thankfully it started to fade. Then we started to see more videos like this, these will fade too. But if you want this to stop its not so much about regulating the drone as it is regulating online video. I'm not suggesting that be done, I'm just pointing out that if you don't remove the incentive you won't stop the behavior.

The FAA took one of the early adopters of producing these sorts of aerial videos to court, Cappy from TBS. Its arguable who won the case, I think they both lost waisting a lot of money and time and it did not prevent or even slow people producing and posting these sorts of videos.

Also, in the six years that I've been doing this I'm not aware of a single death attributed to the crash of a multirotor. I'm not saying the potential for serious injury or death isn't there but that's an incredible safety record. In the same amount of time 12 people died from badminton related injuries.

I'm also a pilot, people always say that flying is the safest form of mass transit, when you get above about 1000' there just isn't that much stuff to run into, so as long as there's no catastrophic failure on the aircraft there's jus not that much that goes wrong. Most accidents are a result of pilot's decision to fly into bad weather. When you enter the world of 3D, flying is 3D driving, the odds of a mid air collision are astronomically small. Even if that guy would have crashed producing this video the odds that he would injure or kill someone are not nearly as high as most people think.

I'm not saying drones aren't dangerous, but as a society we choose to accept the risk of dangerous things all the time and government regulations won't change that. Drone businesses are forecast to exceed $85B by 2020, I can guarantee that even if it does far more people will die riding bicycles than from drone accidents in 2020. The irony in this analogy is that the restrictions local governments have placed on riding bicycles has probably resulted in fewer young people riding bicycles which as they grew probably resulted in an increase in traffic accidents. Riding a bike is an important step in learning how to manage the risk of driving a car...

Sorry, I digress. At any rate if your interested in learning more about what's going on with the legalization of commercial drone use go to ACUAS.org and check that out [and join] .

I can guarantee that even if it does far more people will die riding bicycles than from drone accidents in 2020.

Everyone has a bicycle but that doesn't mean everyone will eventually own a drone so percentage wise it's normal that much more accidents can happen on a bicycle. When you drive a bicycle there is a reason you are not allowed on the highway, the fact that people die in traffic is most often because people don't follow the rules. I think there need to be very strict regulations when flying over populated areas or before you know it every idiot with a drone will be crossing highways because it looks so cool.
I fly a kite when we go to the beach in a area that is specifically for flying a kite but I don't think I would be allowed flying it in the center of a big city or in the middle of the highway, eventhough I know very well how to operate it.

Not everyone owns bike in California. I have a niece and nephew who don't know how to ride a bike and that's not uncommon here. That's the reason for my comment about bikes and driving, my niece just had an accident that I think might have been avoided had she had the experience of riding a bike.

Every idiot is going to try this, and regulating it tightly won't change it. You should not regulate something to stop stupid people from doing stupid things, we regulate it in a way that enable common sense people to do good things. If we took the approach that we are trying to save us from ourselves we'd still be riding horses.

Although the price has come down and the availability of drones that are capable of flying a GoPro has increased, the cost and availability of drones that can fly something bigger than a GoPro with the stability required to get quality footage is still cost prohibitive for most hobbyist. You still don't see that many people flying a hex with a 3-axis gimbal and GH4 above the skyline of New York. For the few that do they usually build MR's that have redundancy so if they lose a motor or prop they can still land it safely. That doesn't make it legal or even a good idea but common sense is winning out more than people are willing to acknowledge.

And in California I might argue that there are as many drones being flown as bikes being ridden. Most of the Phantoms will be flow once or twice, crashed and then stored in the garage next to the bike.

Fortunately the FAA has taken a good approach to regulating sUAS for commercial use so I guess we'll see over time how that plays out.

Let all hope that it works out well for everyone.

The problem with drones is no government really knows how to handle them. It's a bit like the early days of automobiles. People are going to buy and fly drones and in the process invade privacy, damage property and cause personal injuries, even death. Police forces will apply criminal law and arrest operators when problems occur. The justice process will result in some operators being fined or imprisoned. Drones, like hammers, can be useful tools or weapons depending on how they are used.

Injured parties will sue the operators, owners, manufacturers and retailers of the devices. Courts will consider the issues and some injured parties will be successful and receive financial compensation, possibly large amounts.

Over time, the manufacturers of equipment will assess the costs of fighting damage suits and probably modify the operation of the drones to improve product safety. Sensors and functionality can be added to ensure line of sight operation, prevent night operations, limit flying height above terrain, and avoid collisions with obstacles. With GPS and digital mapping, drones may be prevented from entering restricted airspace. These measures may be necessary for manufacturers to get product insurance or satisfy their shareholders and bankers that making a drone product does not run the risk of major financial losses.

Companies using drones for commercial purposes will want to purchase insurance to cover potential losses in the event that an employee operates a drone without due regard to public safety and relevant regulations. Insurers will want proof that the operators are properly qualified which may mean licenses or some other form of certification. Insurers may require that drones meet specific standards and be equipped with safety features to minimize the risk of improper or unsafe operation.

All of these things will play out over time and drone operations will become an accepted practice with well establish limits. Idiots will continue to do stupid and dangerous things, just as they do with cars, but most users follow the rules and operate safely.

Actually, Chuck, I think the majority of these shots will be prohibited under the new FAA scheme as "within cities" and "above populated areas".

Noa, the German pilot in charge of the airliner which crashed recently was "highly regulated" but still managed to foil the regulations (medical reports/locked door to cockpit) to accomplish an evil feat.

I agree with Chuck, Drones are going to become much more popular, both in the commercial regulated world and in the private world. Some great things will surely be done with them as well as so very bad things. I don't see the current regulatory scheme by the FAA as providing much safety to the public, but lots of red tape.

Taking Chuck's point of view, the more people know about drone flight the more protected we will all be.

Over time, the manufacturers of equipment will assess the costs of fighting damage suits and probably modify the operation of the drones to improve product safety. Sensors and functionality can be added to ensure line of sight operation, prevent night operations, limit flying height above terrain, and avoid collisions with obstacles. With GPS and digital mapping, drones may be prevented from entering restricted airspace.

That's already happening. I know of a couple different models that are available to the 'serious enhtusiast' that have no fly zones built into the controller/aircraft. The Yuneec Q500 is one such mudel. It has GPS built into the controller and the quadcopter. If either are in a no fly area, the motors won't even spin up. Now, there's a list you can sign up for to have your property added to a no fly zone. And the fun part is that for now anyway, you don't even have to prove you own the property.

People worry about privacy and I am for maintaining privacy also. But those who think the guy with the wide angle camera on their hobby UAS is going to invade their privacy are misguided. It's somehow OKAY if Google, or Bing take pictures of our fenced in areas for the world to see, using satellites or aircraft. Quite ironic, don't you think?

I'm not in agreement with the pending line of site requirement. The state of FPV is such that you can have a camera on board connected to a pan/tilt servo that will track your head movement. Some UAS also incorporate the ability to fly GPS waypoint routes. For certain operations, those routes can be scouted ahead of time for possible obstructions. Intel showed off some pretty impressive avoidance sensors at CES. I feel that many concerns will be alleviated via technological advancement in the not too distant future.

-gb-

Noa, the German pilot in charge of the airliner which crashed recently was "highly regulated" but still managed to foil the regulations (medical reports/locked door to cockpit) to accomplish an evil feat.

That was not my point, I don't see any difference in me attaching a gopro to my kite, attach a 100 meter line to it and stand next to a highway to fly it or in a busy city center. The only difference would be that I would be arrested for it within 10 minutes and be facing heavy penalties. Same if I would not be caught right away and post my video on youtube with the title, "flying my kite over the Highway to Brussels" there would be a high chance the police would try to find out who I am and arrest me and it would be all over the news.

Yet here you have a guy who's identity is clear posting a video with his drone doing the same thing and everyone is in awe, did he have the proper license to fly his drone? and did he have approval of the city to fly it there? If I want to fly my kite I need to go to a designated area or fly it in a field where I can see people coming from a mile away, why should drone usage be any different?

It's somehow OKAY if Google, or Bing take pictures of our fenced in areas for the world to see, using satellites or aircraft. Quite ironic, don't you think?

It's not, you can blur your house, your face and your car's license plate to protect your privacy if you don't want to see it in google maps but you can't prevent a neighbour from flying over your property filming your wife while she is sunbathing topless in a spot that is not visible to anyone except the drone controller. If you don't know who is flying the drone you can't prevent it while with google you know who is taking the pictures so you at least can take action. And what about thieves using a drone to scout your property? I think there is a definite privacy and security issue to be considered when allowing people to fly a drone.


Every idiot is going to try this, and regulating it tightly won't change it. You should not regulate something to stop stupid people from doing stupid things, we regulate it in a way that enable common sense people to do good things. If we took the approach that we are trying to save us from ourselves we'd still be riding horses.

You can't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things even with strict regulations, that is why every day accidents happen with people drinking, driving to fast and not following rules but that doesn't mean we should give all drone users a free pass, imagine everyone in a big city owning a drone and deciding to fly over the city in the weekend. Not regulating it will only increase privacy, security and safetyriscs as Chinese manufacturers will flood the market with very cheap and unsafe drones so parents will start buying one for Christmas as a present for their 6 year old.


I"m not against people flying drones and I feel they should allow drone usage for commercial purposes if the person controlling it has the right license and if there has been a approval from the city for the location that needs to be filmed. For all other recreational purposes I feel that no other rules should apply then when I want to fly my kite.

I recently spoke to someone who was in a club for flying these little airplanes, he was a active member long before drones with gopros even existed and recently he told me how strict the rules are when they want to meet with their club to fly their airplanes, they also can't fly all over the city so I don't see why drones are so "different"?

It's not, you can blur your house, your face and your car's license plate to protect your privacy if you don't want to see it in google maps but you can't prevent a neighbour from flying over your property filming your wife while she is sunbathing topless in a spot that is not visible to anyone except the drone controller. If you don't know who is flying the drone you can't prevent it while with google you know who is taking the pictures so you at least can take action. And what about thieves using a drone to scout your property? I think there is a definite privacy and security issue to be considered when allowing people to fly a drone.

That's the kind of scenario that I was sort of talking about earlier. With a wide angle lens, as is the case with pretty much all hobby UAS, you wouldn't get a usable image of a sunbathing person unless you flew really close to them. And it's not like they are silent in operation. The victim will be well aware of its presence. Ample opportunity to cover up.

If a manned aircraft or satellite with high powered stabilized zoom flies over the same scenario, they can have VERY detailed, full frame video or photos of the same sunbathing wife, and she would be none the wiser.They truly can spy on you, undetected, but not the small UAS with wide angle lens. Okay, so they don't put that detailed image out to the public, but SOMEONE has to review the images. Privacy violated.

Of course, bad people will do bad things, or at least attempt to do bad things. It has always been that way, and always will. My point is, that the small UAS isn't the privacy threat that the media has made it out to be. For just about any scenario one can think of, I can think of alternate methods to obtain the same violation of privacy without the victim ever being aware of said invasion of privacy.

Here I read a interesting article about privacy and how drones could be misused for not only to be peeping on your wife and that all in 4K :) It just have become much easier to track peoples behavior : Hollywood celebrities besieged by paparazzi drones in the sky - and you could be next | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746231/Attack-drones-Hollywood-celebrities-besieged-paparazzi-spies-sky-Worried-You-ll-soon-regular-fixture-YOUR-home.html)

That's the kind of scenario that I was sort of talking about earlier. With a wide angle lens, as is the case with pretty much all hobby UAS, you wouldn't get a usable image of a sunbathing person unless you flew really close to them.

What if I place a gh4 and a tele lens on it? Current systems could allow to balance that very nicely and allow you to shoot highly detailed 4K video or shoot high res photos even from a further distance. without anyone noticing anything.

What if I place a gh4 and a tele lens on it? Current systems could allow to balance that very nicely and allow you to shoot highly detailed 4K video or shoot high res photos even from a further distance. without anyone noticing anything.

That's very true. And at that point, you are at a cost point that is well beyond the average hobbyist. Again, those same shots can often be obtained by a helicopter with long, stabilized lens like the current news choppers have. And paparazzi have been known to hire helicopters to get shots of celebrity weddings, etc.

Which also brings up another point. What good is a 'don't fly over my house', database if I can simply hover from a nearby park using the rig you described and still get those improper images. Here in Texas a couple years ago, they passed legislation that states you can't film someone's property without their consent. Now, I don't think that applies to a wide angle with many homes in view, it would be totally unenforceable. You wouldn't be able to fly anywhere. Public photography in the US is protected by the constitution. States are not allowed to enact laws that infringe on those rights. The laws in Europe are much different.

... Over time, the manufacturers of equipment will assess the costs of fighting damage suits and probably modify the operation of the drones to improve product safety. Sensors and functionality can be added to ensure line of sight operation, prevent night operations, limit flying height above terrain, and avoid collisions with obstacles. With GPS and digital mapping, drones may be prevented from entering restricted airspace. These measures may be necessary for manufacturers to get product insurance or satisfy their shareholders and bankers that making a drone product does not run the risk of major financial losses...

Good points all. And this, for better or for worse, is how the free market regulates itself. It will take time to sort out but this process will result in better quality drones, the right insurance tools, and eventually well qualified operators. And no matter how long it takes it will happen exponentially faster than it would if the government tried to anticipate all that needed to be regulated.

Its interesting that DJI has added the ability to restrict flights from being conducted in prohibited areas and they require that you upgrade the firmware on your controller to install those restrictions. If you don't upgrade the firmware in a predetermined amount of time your drone won't arm. Kind of begs the question who actually own's the drone?

That's one of the many reason to never buy DJI.

Here in Texas a couple years ago, they passed legislation that states you can't film someone's property without their consent. Now, I don't think that applies to a wide angle with many homes in view, it would be totally unenforceable. .

Usually a restriction like that has an exception for a 'not the focus if attention' sort of view.

Its interesting that DJI has added the ability to restrict flights from being conducted in prohibited areas and they require that you upgrade the firmware on your controller to install those restrictions. If you don't upgrade the firmware in a predetermined amount of time your drone won't arm. Kind of begs the question who actually own's the drone?

Reminds me of movies and songs. The company owns the movie/song. You bought a license. For instance, Amazon pulled a book off of Kindles because it turned out they didn't have the rights to sell it. Customers were very mad, but there was nothing they could do (I don't recall, but presume they got a refund/credit).

We are so afraid of the future, we might actually prevent it!

We used to fly over a nudist hot spring South of Denver. At 1000 feet AGL, you could not see anything, except people running. Of course, as some of you have pointed out, a stabilized camera could do damage. Most people, though, don't have that much to show, and really not that much to worry about. Most of us were born naked, anyway.

We will never move ahead as a society, Noa, if it takes a license to cross the street or to fly a kite.

I wrote somewhere before about Texas Equusearch which is finding people alive by using drones. The FAA considers life saving a commercial purpose. There was a hell of a beef in Texas about this. There should have been. Regulations are getting in the way of people's lives, and an industry that is ready to burst a seam.

My question still has not been answered what the difference is between me flying a kite in a city center and flying a drone :) or would you agree that in all these years before drones with camera's existed when people flew little radiocontrolled airplanes and helicopters it was wrong to strictly regulate where they could fly these things, did society not move ahead in those days either?

Or is it just us videographers that feel we have the right to do whatever we please?

The difference between a kite and a drone is mass, inertia, range, etc. If a kite hits someone it's unlikely to cause serious injury. Radio controlled aircraft haven't traditionally been "strictly regulated" in the USA. A couple of years ago someone was decapitated in Central Park in NYC by his own toy helicopter - it's not unusual for kids to play with their RC toys in parks. But then you never saw folks flying them around downtown Manhattan, there's never been a presumption that it was a harmless activity I suppose. Now the quad/hex/octo capability has gotten so good that it seems harmless to fly one in an urban setting so folks are doing just that. When people feel at risk then they are going to demand some protection from that risk, and there is always that segment of the public who think the government can mitigate every risk to which they are exposed, which of course is nonsense.

If a kite hits someone it's unlikely to cause serious injury. I fly a large kite which is considered a beginners kite but I like the brute force I need to apply to control it under strong winds where I can even let it pull myself forward, make no mistake about it's injury risk though, when I make a horizontal "flyby" I am sure I can knock a grown man out cold if I would hit his head even resulting in serious head injury.

A couple of years ago someone was decapitated in Central Park in NYC by his own toy helicopter

If I have to follow some arguments given here this is no big deal as much more people driving a bike die, shit happens, but that doesn't mean we should prevent everyone who wants to fly a large rc helicopter throughout the city. But maybe the difference is in the fact that it's ok when there is a gopro attached to it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against people flying drones as long as there are clear regulations, if I look at that video in this thread this should only be permitted if the operator can prove he is qualified and if he would have gotten a permission from the city.

When I started shooting protest videos the best advice I ever got from a photographer who always got his shot, was "don't ask". I wear a press badge when I shoot protest, if they don't have armed guards at the door or stairway, I go and I shoot. I got booted out of the Colorado senate once. But other than that, I have been able to get my shot.

Drones are kind of the same way. There is a regulatory scheme heading at us like a freight train and we will be caught up in it. I know the FAA well, and many of the photogs who think it is like getting a driver's license will soon enough find out the FAA has little interest in protecting the photog and a lot of interest protecting the public. Fines and seizures will be rampant. In fact, if you want to buy a drone cheaply, just wait until the public sales of seized drones.

Today's drone is very different from the hobby rotorcraft. They are much more stable, much more controllable, more dependable so an engine out is not as big a worry, more navigable.. The cost will put them out of the hobby market and into the hands of people who can create true works of art. The shots the guy who took the video got, and by the way, he is a fairly well known cameraman, would be illegal in the U.S. That is the difference between a drone and a kite. We won't be able to do what that guy did and I think it is tragic.

They are good at using scare tactics to stop valuable work with drones. Frankly, I am not too worried about the privacy of the "rich and famous". The stars asked for the publicity. When they get it they bitch.

I am worried about someone's kid not found in time. So it behooves me to post some of the positive things these machines can do.

We, as a society, have been under surveillance for a long time...in elevators, on the public walkway, and sure, even in public restrooms. Why all the fear about the eye in the sky?

What I am not happy about is not being able to do what the film maker did in the first video on a commercial scale. I am not happy the FAA is making a federal case out of something so simple. I am not saying there should be no regulations, but the FAA plan is too many.

Anyway, here is an article about an organization that might not find your kid, or Alzheimer victim father, or another person you care about because of over-regulation.

Some of us on this forum are in the business of taking beautiful videos. Drones could be a wonderful tool, but only when we stop being afraid.

Drone Team That Finds Missing People and Dead Bodies Would Like To Keep Doing That - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/04/07/drones-that-find-missing-people-and-dead-bodies-want-freedom-from-faa/)

If you liked the OP video check this video out. All of the city overflight of this video is at the end.

Widokówki (Postcards) - YouTube

Pretty cool stuff, Chuck. These are exactly the kinds of shots I would love to do for some of my work, yet the FAA regs would prohibit them of a professional, while allowing them as a hobbyist.


Nice post!

Tim

Not in Belgium, it was on the news a few days ago as a new law was made to go into effect later this year describing drone usage, I have not read any specifics but they said as a hobbyist you where only allowed to fly in your own backyard and this max 30 meter high (and without needing a license) and you where allowed to fly on/over someone else property if you had permission from this person. For professionals you are allowed to fly max 90 meter high and you need to take a medical, theoretical and practical exam and your drone needs to be registered and checked, nothing though about where you where able to fly or what in regard to permissions.

I am not too worried about the privacy of the "rich and famous". The stars asked for the publicity. When they get it they bitch.
I"m sure some think that any publicity is good publicity but even the rich and famous have the right to privacy in their own homes, when they are on holiday or when they go out shopping. They have the right to bitch if they don't want to be filmed.

I am worried about someone's kid not found in time. So it behooves me to post some of the positive things these machines can do.

That's a task of the right authorities, not sure if it's being done yet but here I could understand if the police would deploy a drone to find a missing child back or to look in places they can't reach on foot.

You have a lot of trust in the "authorities" Noa.

In the U.S. the "authorities" will spend a certain amount of time looking for a missing person and then give up the fight and in some cases won't even begin a search until more information is had or certain time periods have gone by. Resentments broil over as the authorities never give up the fight to hand out traffic tickets while not having the time to respond to emergency calls or search for missing persons.

Texas Equusearch is a public private partnership in which the non-profit search organization deploys both man-power, boots on the ground, and high tech methods, to find people. They have been successful in finding hundreds of people the police gave up on...alive. Some, just in time. They have also helped many people with closure by finding people who have perished.

TEX is now using drones to find people. People interested in drone use as part of their profession might find this niche an important part of their business...if we can convince our government authorities to lighten up on the rules a little bit. This is the private sector at work doing what, in theory, should be done by the public sector, the "authorities".

We do live in different parts of the globe and I know they do take people that get missing where I live quite serious, but not sure what this has to do with the right to fly wherever you please with your drone for either recreational or professional use. It looks more to me you are trying to find reasons why we should give a free pass to everyone owning one.

Here's what our CASA in Australia has to say on the matter.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100374)

We do live in different parts of the globe and I know they do take people that get missing where I live quite serious, but not sure what this has to do with the right to fly wherever you please with your drone for either recreational or professional use. It looks more to me you are trying to find reasons why we should give a free pass to everyone owning one.

I guess it depends on your perspective, I'm one of the founders of ACUAS.org, an advocacy and trade organization for the commercial use of sUAS. We started with a simple premise, it is not incumbent on us to prove that we have the right to be in the sUAS business, its incumbent upon the government to prove that we don't and they can't do that arbitrarily or capriciously. There's a process they have to go through to regulate it, Fortunately the FAA has issued an NPRM that on the surface not only acknowledges the rights of sUAS but in the language of the NPRM took it step further and announced their intention to support it.

The primary concern for the FAA is to make sure drones aren't running into manned aircraft and are not falling from the sky injuring people on the ground. The FAA has nothing to do with privacy. Plenty of laws already exist to protect people's privacy from drones or any other means of invading it.

No one is asking for a free pass, we're simply asking that the regulations are not so onerous on small sUAS businesses that they can't afford to be in this business. The proposed NPRM strikes a great balance between safety and the rights of commercial sUAS operators. I think the FAA got this right.

The overwhelming number of airspace incursions, flying over highly populated areas, inside fireworks displays is being done by enthusiasts making youtube videos. If you want to quell that then regulate Youtube. Since that's not going to happen we're going to have to acknowledge that you can't regulate stupidity, there will always be idiots who may endanger people not even aware they are violating any regulations. Also, Noa, I'm a full sized helicopter and fixed wing pilot and I fly over large crowds pretty regularly. I do it legally and safely but if something went terribly wrong there's little doubt that people on the ground could get hurt. But its my job to make sure that doesn't happen. The public trusts professionals to keep them safe all the time, bus drivers, train engineers and airline pilots. Yes they all have varying degree's of licensing but as we have just witnessed in France that doesn't prevent bad thing from happening.

So I think the FAA has got the commercial sUAS regulatory framework in the US mostly right. I'm not sure why you think people shouldn't be allowed to fly drones wherever they like? I can drive my car, ride my motorcycle and with very few restrictions fly my plane wherever I like, why not my drone? That doesn't mean its a free-for-all, it just means that there are more responsible people than there are idiots. If we regulated anything based on keeping idiots safe we couldn't do anything.

It looks like Australia is on par with the U.S. in it's drone philosophy. For the life of me, as a pilot, I can't see why requiring the knowledge of a pilot to fly a drone is required. Some fundamental basics are certainly of help, like understanding the difference between an object falling through the air (which can be an aircraft) and an object in controlled flight. Understanding IFR flight rules and the disorientation of a pilot in the clouds seem absolutely unnecessary for drone pilots. At the most, drone pilots may lose sight of their aircraft but won't experience the disorientation of flight through the clouds.

I mentioned TES in my prior post. Interestingly enough, I found out about TES while volunteering to search for the SV Nina which disappeared in the Tasman Sea off Australia's coast.

Sailing Savoir Faire: Nina, Nemeth The Story Page 2 (http://sailingsavoirfaire.blogspot.com/2013/07/nina-nemeth-pg-2.html)

We were thinking about using drones in the search, but one of the problems was the red tape for Australia and New Zealand. The other was, who was going to buck up for the loss of a drone into the ocean, if it occurred.

The benefit, though, to search and rescue, and the answer to Noa's question, why let "anyone" with a drone fly the thing, is the amazing ability to capture and later study footage taken during a search mission from a drone as well as not placing lives at risk over dangerous ocean searches. Aircraft have to be specially modified for areal photog or you have to dedicate another body (and put another life at risk) to hold a video cam for less optimal shots. Some regulation is obviously needed in drone flight, but over regulation stunts the growth of the industry and perhaps the bottom line to private companies in legitimate new uses for this technology.

By the way, the Nina was never found. One factor that may have contributed to that was the approximate 20 day delay in launching a search. Part of what goes into that search equation is the cost of running 4 engine aircraft (for redundancy and distance) and the risk of placing lives on the line in each ocean search. Drone flight is far less expensive because they don't need 4 engines for redundancy. Current technology allows streaming of the image for immediate, land based, analysis and faster rescue.

I am still back at wanting to get some amazing footage for my next band video, or protest video, though. Under the proposed new drone regs many shots would not be allowed to commercial drone operators.

I think the process of attaining a certification to fly a UAV, UAS, Drone, Quadcopter, or whatever you want to call these machines, is a valuable one.

Here in the UK it's taken pretty seriously. I might have shared many of Tim Paynters views before I embarked on my BNUC-S course and before I started to learn how to control a high speed lump of metal and plastic flying through a 3D space. And as with many beginners I drifted into trees and bushes and lost sight of my machine and like others I've experienced a flyaway and more alarmingly I've written off a ZenMuse Gimbal and GoPro 4 by simply trying to get my Phantom to come back towards me at the same time as getting it to descend and avoid a house - that involves moving both control sticks down and inwards at the same time - which is also the command sequence to stop the motors. So that's the sort of mistake you make when you are inexperienced and get into a panic.

The training and restrictions might seem over the top initially but as Chuck Spaulding points out the FAA’s Small UAS NPRM seems to have struck a sensible balance.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_sUAS_Summary.pdf

Reading through this it is very similar to the requirements of the CAA here in the UK. The training provides a framework to fly and operate professionally and this is all about safety before during and after you fly and that protects both the general public and yourself.

This qualification will also give you a great calling card if you are planning to make money out of flying a UAV. It will re-assure customers that you are experienced, that you look after your craft and that you are trained to operate safely.

The regs look really simple until you know how they will be implemented. There are a few clauses of specific concern, reporting an accident with property damage means every time you run into a tree and knock a wing off, you have to file a report. File too many of those and you could have problems. The FAA exam could be difficult. No flying over people not involved in the operation is a problem for wedding videographers, cityscape photographers and most of us.

Some of the regs make sense; some are too much; these regs would prohibit taking the video in the first frame of this post.

You are certainly right, Mark, an operator has an obligation to learn how to fly his craft and to be proficient before placing it into commercial service.