And yet here we stand on the cusp of creating a whole new breed of pilots who are ready willing and able to follow simple common-sense rules for UAV aviation, creating a new sector of jobs that didn't exist before. Jobs that get the same results without all of the negative safety and environmental externalities of flying giant tin kites with primates stuffed inside.

Just make up your minds and tell us the rules already.

> Just make up your minds and tell us the rules already.

This is a bit off topic, but this is something that I've spent a lot of my life being worried about. I'm pretty sure that most people don't really understand what rules even are. Effectively they want two rules 1) things I like are good and 2) things I don't like are bad. However, you cant just come out and say that because of other social reasons.

Back on topic. I work in a 'nice' place in Indiana and recently there have been 35-45ish year olds wearing business casual showcasing their drone like remote control flying machines to their 35-45ish year old, business casual wearing friends. Additionally, growing up I went to church with a guy who ended up recently graduating college with some sort of piloting degree (sorry I dont know any of the details besides "he went to college to be a pilot"). He's now going to be a police man of some sort reportedly because recent piloting regulatory changes have made it even harder to make a living as a pilot.

With these two anecdotes in mind, my guess is that the chaotic social fabric that rules our lives will decide in favor of the UAVs and against manned aerial vehicles.

aren't the most recent regulatory changes all about requiring more hours before being able to do significant commercial flights?

Why would this new breed of pilot be reliant on someone else to provide simple common-sense rules? The problem isn't the a absence of rules, but rather the presence of rules explicitly prohibiting commercial UAV work.

The rules we have now are not common-sense. They really amount to a refusal to consider the idea at all. It seems like they are saying "you can't fly until we decide" and then they refuse to address the issue.

Drones have the potential for large abuses by bad actors in areas like privacy and safety so there should probably be some rules governing them. An autonomous, GPS guided, flying his-res camera is a new thing for human society. Its got lots of positive and negative potential. We need to manage the negatives so we can get the benefits of the positives.

Hear, hear!

Monkeys have no business flying planes.

by the time the rules are made up why will we need pilots? Recreational and low tech UAVs sure, but for jobs similar to the article, checking power lines, or even just updating maps, piloted UAVs may have a very short life in the face of automation

Without all the positive externalities, too. I make no judgment here, just a reminder that it's not necessarily just a negative.

Remember this is something that's happening constantly due to the use of automated technologies. Beware of blaming others just because their effects were more visible. It's something that everyone working in new technologies (even just as a user) should think about.

In fact, I'd say this case is actually one of the more benign. The environmental advantages of flying a quadcopter versus a full plane or helicopter alone are tremendous.

i work for a big cm and our use of airplane photography has plummeted in the last few years: not because of drones (yet), but because google earth is good enough for a good portion of our needs.

Should they get paid because there is a more efficient way to do things? Does money inherently relate to inefficiency?

Sounds like http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ in action

I thought this was going to be a story about how your friend got rewarded for taking initiative and revolutionizing that particular aspect of the business.

You got me good.

Maybe the friend will now realize he could make more money by starting his own drone aerial photography business.

I don't think he can though...not legally in the US, at least.

I'm all for it if it keeps pubs safer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25163045

And now buildings got a bit cheaper, too.

I initially thought, "no way bro, contractors will swallow up the savings as additional profit!"

But then I realized that since construction contracts go through a bidding process, the cost of building is a "cost based price". Buildings really may become a little bit cheaper from this. That's awesome :)

Also, since the price is lowered for aerial photographs, demand will go up. I don't know what benefits aerial photographs bring to construction, but we are sure to see more of them.

owners often have outside financing they have to spend on the project or lose. they'll use that money to upgrade something else. ideally it would mean something to boost their standing in the community, like more public art or bike racks, but sometimes it's more marble in the executive shower.

And some services which actually benefit from having a human pilot on a large aircraft.