
It is now legal for US firms to start using drones in a limited manner - LukeHack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/29/as-of-today-its-finally-legal-to-fly-drones-commercially/
======
wonder_er
Now companies can start legally innovating in a way they should have been able
to do for the last few years.

There's risk to drones - and companies can buy insurance to cover themselves.
If they make a mistake, don't have insurance, and cause harm, they can be
sued.

I wonder how long before the black market of remote drone operations companies
shows up. Then the FAA will demand more regulation.

~~~
afarrell
> they can be sued

This only works in a world when you assume that the person in question has

1) Assets sufficient to cover the cost of their negligence.

2) Will not die to avoid liability.

Given that the liability for aerospace accidents can be quite high and that
many people can choose to die without loss of human life, these assumptions
aren't very sturdy.

~~~
wonder_er
If someone made a bad choice, hurt someone, and was sued and had all of their
assets taken from them, that would be a great motivation for everyone else to
get insurance.

Insurance companies, being eager to not pay out, would adjust their premiums
based on the riskiness of the drone driver.

Carrying heavy payloads above people? If you mess up, the insurance company
could pay out many millions. Your costs go up accordingly.

Carrying a camera above fields for crop imagery? Almost no insurance risk,
tiny premiums.

There's no way for _regulation_ to cover the massive potential drone market
without relying entirely upon a Procrustian Bed [0] form of "responding to the
market".

[0] [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procrustean-
bed](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procrustean-bed)

Oh, and re: #2, the person killing themselves to avoid liability - I doubt
they'd be that swayed by regulation in the first place. They've got other
problems than a lack of insurance.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
I think the "people" killing themselves are meant to be corporations.

------
conductr
Regarding line of sight. I wonder if companies could just erect a pilot tower
(in a relatively flat region). I know where I live 40 feet of height would
give a pilot visibility to millions of homes because it's pretty flat. Maybe
they need binoculars to see the drone when it was a certain distance away, but
maybe that's within regs?

~~~
sounds
The FAA has said no binoculars:
[https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2...](https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516)

    
    
      > (for example, no binoculars)

~~~
sleepychu
_That 's not to say it will never happen: Companies can apply for special
testing waivers from the FAA that allow them to go farther than what the rules
permit. And those are generally approved on a case-by-case basis. The FAA is
also running an experimental program called Pathfinder that's looking at how
companies like CNN and others can fly drones over people (for example, for
newsgathering purposes) and in beyond-line-of-sight operations.

The FAA has granted 76 of these waivers. Of those, 72 had to do with flying at
night, which is still prohibited under the official regulations._

------
ryan42
my friend works at a startup that will likely be one of the first flying
drones commercially outside of line of sight :)

[http://media.precisionhawk.com/topic/faa-grants-
precisionhaw...](http://media.precisionhawk.com/topic/faa-grants-
precisionhawk-bvlos-waiver/)

~~~
falcolas
To be fair, people have been operating drones commercially outside of line of
sight for years now (many of them even legally) using FAA exemptions. There's
a number of YouTube videos which show this occurring (look for a FAA exemption
ID to be included in the video or description).

------
bluetwo
Stay up to date!

[https://www.faasafety.gov/search/default.aspx?keywords=drone...](https://www.faasafety.gov/search/default.aspx?keywords=drone&submit=Search)

[https://www.faasafety.gov/search/Default.aspx?keywords=suas](https://www.faasafety.gov/search/Default.aspx?keywords=suas)

------
bencollier49
Should the title be amended to indicate that this is referring to the USA? I
appreciate that the article is in the Washington Post, but it would be nice to
be able to get a more accurate summary straight-up.

~~~
sctb
OK, we've updated the title.

------
aioprisan
Why was the title changed to include "for firms"? Do we have some British
editors here? Strange since the FAA ruling only applies to the US, where we'd
call them "businesses"

~~~
sctb
From the article:

> _On Monday, an important set of federal drone rules finally took effect
> across the country — making it possible for firms to start using drones in a
> limited manner._

------
awestroke
Clickbait title.

> The drones can be flown only during the day and can't be flown over people
> who aren't somehow related to the flight. They can fly only up to an
> altitude of 400 feet, a speed of up to 100 miles per hour and they have to
> stay within visual contact of the operator.

In other words, it's not legal to do any kind of comercially interesting drone
flights

~~~
tombert
I was about to comment that: how exactly is this useful? In New York, there's
not a lot of places you could fly that _aren 't_ over a person unrelated to
flight?

~~~
burkaman
I've read a lot of articles about farmers using drones to remotely view their
fields, with stuff like thermal cameras so they know what needs to be watered.
Can't immediately think of any other common uses, but people are creative. And
as the article says, the rules should loosen a little by the end of the year.

~~~
falcolas
Search and Rescue, cinematography (which includes things like filming flybys
of houses for realtors, in addition to making films), remote mapping
(including mapping out fires), agriculture (frequently using IR and other
camera technologies), delivering small payloads to remote locations (such as
tools or materials to smokejumpers or mountain climbers), remote inspection...

Think of anything we use a helicopter for now, and drones will probably help
cheaply supplant those uses wherever possible.

