The problem is that even for line-of-sight users, the FAA won't let you use them for commercial purposes. So, your hypothetical kid would be okay filming their friends, so long as they didn't make any money from it.

There are two issues with drones that the FAA needs to figure out: 1) commercial use and 2) autonomous (out of sight) flight. The latter is much trickier than the former. I'm all for autonomous drones having to get certified (including FPV, since those would need some kind of fail-safe). But even here, there might need to be a "hobbyist" class and a commercial class with different requirements.

I think that there are a couple of obvious rules that could be applied to speed things along: 1) limit location and altitude of flying, 2) require hands-on control (or take over), 3) require line of sight, 4) enforce some reasonable weight restrictions (for cameras). If you could meet those four things, then I don't see why you'd need to have a commercial restriction. You might have other issues to deal with for insurance, but I don't see why the FAA should care about commercial/non-commercial with such small craft.

Now, when you get into autonomous flight and real payloads, then that's a whole other ballgame, where I think the FAA will have some real work to do. In particular though, I'd hate to see them limit the hobbyist segment too much. I think it would be a lot of fun to build a small, autonomous drone that could fly using GPS waypoints with a camera. I just don't want to have to go through 2 years of certification to be able to fly it!

Sure - this might be a good example here because any rules the FAA will come out with in this regard will probably require you to be able to read a sectional chart unless you're really in the middle of nowhere. The DJI drones are all easily capable of altitudes that could interfere with VFR traffic and in places like the Bay Area the ceilings people are flying under are often quite low to avoid, for example, the SFO airspace. Drones are way more maneuverable than airplanes, so the realistic burden will be on the drone operators to avoid rather than the other way around.

Definitely shouldn't be a two-years-of-flight-school thing, but there probably is a written test at the DMV somewhere in here.

It doesn't hurt to lose a $300-$1000 quadrotor pilot license.

It might start out as a 10" wide quadcopter, until the first major crash. Instead of ordering a new arm, it can be reconfigured as a tricopter with the addition of a servo. After a while, the tricopter might become a V-Tail if the user likes the flight characteristics.

Then FPV kit might get added, or a GPS reciever. Now it's flying semi-autonomously and the user wants better quality video, so it's transplanted onto a 18" frame, fitted with a gimbal and nicer camera.

At what point does the multicopter need to change registration numbers?

A simple "You must have your name and contact info on it" rule would be more than sufficient - and in fact is already the case for 90% of the aircraft out there. I even have my contact info taped to the body of my little 4" Hubsan quadcopter; I'll probably never need it, but why throw away expensive hardware if you don't have to?

Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand.

I flew private with someone when I was a student pilot; we were on a deadline, so instead of waiting for the weather to let up, we were scud running about 300 miles back to our home airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud_running). This is inadvisable; you're throwing minimum ceilings out the window, and hoping you don't run into obstacles on the ground (wind towers, cell towers, antenna guy wires).

It's not just dangerous, but illegal if you get caught. (Note: I was not PIC, and did not make the call). Do not do this.

EDIT: /u/lsh123 said it better.

Not to mention the enforcement part. All planes today have a call sign and FAA/NTSB can easily go after pilots when rules are broken. This is an important part of the overall safety architecture. FAA would need to come up with a way to enforce rules on drones pilots and operators to ensure that unsafe behavior is punished.

Automated drones would completely change how we live our lives. In contrast, the general aviation community is small and hasn't advanced significantly since the 1950's. The popular engines and airframes are almost the same as they were a half-century ago. Heck, most private planes still run on leaded gasoline. Restricting drones to preserve private planes makes about as much sense as restricting automobiles to preserve horseback riding.

I wouldn't mean for a certification pathway for UAV operators to exclude autonomous operation, but it's certainly a harder problem. It will probably be similar to current aircraft certification. Small companies have long histories of building and certifying airframes, so I don't buy your argument that it would "seriously stunt" drones. A company that can raise money can go through airframe and type certification. The costs come down in proportion to airframe fabrication and fuel costs.

It's one thing to let cities set their own rules for local flights below 400 ft. What happens when a software bug sends you up to 1,000 ft? Accidentally busts Class B airspace? These are similar issues as being seen with autonomous cars and can't be easily waved away.

The problem is that while legislators and rule-makers often react quickly when restricting things, they are very loath to repeal restrictions. A work-around is to permit most things by default, then restrict in reaction to specific issues.

Two excellent examples of squandered potential are general aviation and amateur radio. Both have been encumbered by nationwide rules that quickly became outdated. (Seriously, Morse code?) I'm very worried the FAA will do the same to drones. After all, that's what they're incentivized to do. They only get fired when someone is killed by a new technology. They aren't commended when millions benefit from it.

On the other hand, the FAA could drastically accelerate drone development with one simple rule: Allow cities and states to make their own laws regarding anything less than 10kg flying under 400ft. This includes commercial use.[1]

That's it. If local governments want to experiment, let them.

1. Of course there would be the normal restrictions around airports, military bases, etc. Also, temporary restrictions for VIPs such as the president make sense.

Model planes don't need all this licensing stuff, you can just build one and go out in a field and have some fun. There's even some really big, impressive, jet powered model planes. Where is the boundary drawn exactly?

Put another way, would drone pilot school be basically learning to fly a model plane/helicopter?

Do you think it's because it's a more stable/easier to fly platform?

My uncle used to be an avid R/C plane enthusiast (even has a small R/C only airfield named after him). Built and flew decent sized aircraft for decades, even put video on quite a few. But damn if they aren't hard to fly.