Drone-based businesses soar in Canada, as FAA grounds US entrepreneurs

Actual non-Libya URL: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/07/canadian-startu...

The articles may overlap a bit but they're certainly quite different. The submitted article has a lot more content than the one you linked and most of it deals with the state of drone usage in the US rather than the startups in Canada which are using drones.

Also, Resson Aerospace is definitely mentioned in both articles.

Quentin Casey wrote a good article. So did this guy.

> Needing to apply for a government permit to operate a drone?

Are you talking about commercial flying? I certainly do not think I should need to apply for a government permit to fly a 15 gram quadcopter that could not cause injury or property damage if I tried.

I'm hoping its temporary and a better solution can be found soon. I think most of the fear is the sky being filled with commercial drones, which I think can be solved pretty easily.

> It's bizarre that it's legal to fly a drone/quadcopter as a hobby, but not if you charge for the services.

It is also legal to have sex as a hobby, but not -- in (most of) the U.S., and much of the rest of the world -- if you charge for the services.

Actually, there are a lot of things that are legal to do if you aren't charging for a service, but illegal, or at least much more tightly regulated, if you are charging for a service.

It's very typical to more strictly regulate commercial use of the sky than non-commercial. For human aviators, the progression in licenses is Private Pilot (cannot even charge passengers more than their pro-rata share of expenses), Commercial Pilot (can get paid for banner towing, crop dusting, and aerial photography), and Airline Transport Pilot. Aircraft themselves are subject to increasing regulatory burdens regarding maintenance intervals and documentation depending on whether they are for private use (Part 91), Part 135 (charter), or Part 121 (airline).

In broadcasting, amateur radio operators ("hams") are allowed to use the airwaves much more easily than commercial broadcasters.

Perhaps this principle does not translate perfectly to drone operations, but the general goal seems to be to protect both individual liberty and consumers of for-profit service providers.

(Note that contrary to political rhetoric "government regulation hurts business", the viability of the airline industry depends on safety standards: the market has to be larger than "hardcore daredevils" to justify a fleet of 737's.)

I don't think it's "bizarre" at all - getting paid _fundamentally_ changes things.

Although the "ban commercial use completely" approach is a pretty big hammer to use - as a hobbyist RC pilot who's flown with a camera aboard for some time (http://bigiain.com/Mini-Swift-RC-plane) I've had _many_ requests to take photos/video for other people, many of whom have offered money for it, and almost _all_ of which would require me to make safety compromises that I probably wouldn't choose to make "just doing it for kicks". And the more money on offer, the more tempting it is and the bigger the risks that might get taken.

While _I_ think the risks I take flying that plane in the linked video are reasonable (it weighs ~125g all up, and puts a maximum of about 55W into spinning the prop), I've seen people fly multicopters weighing over 6kg with eight 2000W motors spinning 14inch carbon fiber props in _way_ more public and crowded places than that. I certainly wouldn't choose to do that. And Youtube is full of clips which make me say "Really? You chose to do _that_ _there_? Are you insane?"

I think the "easier learning curve" on things like DJI's gear, coupled with it's accessible price - but _also_ coupled with a bunch of people who either haven't thought through the possible consequences, don't care about the consequences, or who think the money they're making means the risk is worth taking - will inevitably lead to bad decisions being made.

On the more optimistic side, at least _some_ places (here in Australia, for example), it seems like the authorities (CASA in my case) are trying to take account of the differing nature of different "drones", and at least proposing a graduated approach - a sub 500g craft probably isn't going to need to abide by the came rules as a 6kg+ one. (And, if the lower-bound in their current ruleset stays, sub 100g craft will be classified still as "toys" and not covered by these rules.)

if the goal of the commercial use ban is to simply limit the number of things flying around the sky, it makes perfect sense. as soon as you allow drones to be used for commercial purposes, the number of them will skyrocket. a couple of hobbyists flying their toys around isn't going to cause problems, the tacocopter lunch rush could be a big problem.

You will probably luck out the same as the U.S. -- and every immigrant destination -- has forever. The people that have the talent, ability, and motivation to successfully emigrate from one country to another don't tend to be the dumbest people.

"Flying anywhere near aerodromes is illegal just about everywhere."

This is simply not true. It might be illegal just about everywhere without permission, but there are countries, where you can get permission to drone shoot legally at or near an airport.

One example is Switzerland: http://tinoscherer.ch/air-14-payerne-mera-drone/ http://tinoscherer.ch/project/air-14-remo-masina-bazl-drone/

You're right about the "potentially" in this case.

Do you have more info handy? My immeadiate thought was it was a Fiji promotional video, and approved of. I'd love to read the intrigue on it.

I've been cut when hand-launching a drone. The prop embedded itself in my finger through my fingernail.

I still feel like safety cages and banning drones are not the solution. Proper training and respecting the tool are much more effective.