> This is the only sensible (but temporary) decision that the FAA could have done
Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times.
Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.
> Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
These are all very good suggestions and I have no doubt that something like this will happen in the long run. Of course, government bureaucracy is painfully slow.
The FAA also needs to make these decisions (e.g. maximum takeoff weight) based on some facts, not just gut feeling, and I'd guess that they are hard at work (as hard as a government bureaucrat can) to try to figure out the regulations under which drone operations can be permitted.
There are people who would want to allow unregulated, autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles and do so now. I think that this is a pretty crazy idea...
Sadly, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Perhaps I'm just jaded because I've been running into this brick wall for so long now. Hopefully your optimism is justified.
Take the Yamaha-RMAX helicopter used for agriculture as an example of data. There's 2,500 of them actively flying in Japan (point of comparison, US Air Force has less than 500 UAVs). The RMAX has more than 2,000,000 flight hours with an impeccable safety record. Yamaha offered troves of data and requested permission to use the RMAX for crop-spraying over vineyards in California. FAA said, "No."
That's the problem. The FAA simply says, "No". They don't say "You haven't met requirement X", there are no requirements that can be met by anyone.
If 2 million flight hours is not enough data, what is?
Not by a long-shot! The FAA has been dragging its heals for more than 15 years!! I've been personally involved working with unmanned aircraft since 2002, and even back then the FAA was woefully behind the times.
Instead of an outright ban, the more sensible decision would be to allow it under highly restrictive conditions. For example, require that the operator has a pilot's license. Require that the deliveries only occur over unpopulated areas (example, ice fishing lakes). Require that the max take-off weight of the aircraft is very low.
Highly restrictive is more sensible than an outright ban because it provides real data for how to integrate unmanned aircraft while at the same time preventing very dangerous situations.