Useful commercial
applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) are becoming evident –
placing the FAA, charged with safely regulating US air space, in a
quandary. FAA relies on a 1991 policy,
recently expanded, for exempting small, hobbyist drones, but the effect of its
regulation to date is to ban commercial uses.
Studies have
shown immense potential benefits from the commercial use of drones, ranging
from farmland management, search and rescue operations, pipeline inspection,
real estate management, medicine delivery, etc.
It seems to
me that the model long established for controlling two-dimensional space
(highway and boat traffic) could provide a useful way of looking at managing
three-dimensional space.
For example,
boat and auto drivers are required to secure licenses (regular and commercial,
motorcycle endorsements, driver education, etc.) and insurance (property
damage, personal liability, collision, uninsured motorist, etc.) for operation
of their vehicles, are permitted to only operate them in certain areas and in
certain ways (exclusive domain exclusions, right side of the road, “rules of
the road,” speed limits, “no wake,” etc.), and are supported by an
infrastructure (local, state, and interstate highways; navigation channels, locks,
etc.) largely managed by government.
The
regulatory philosophy behind regulation of two-dimensional space is one of
balancing the value of the activity against risk of failures and damage to
persons and property.
Outright bans
(or coercive regulations which have the effect of outright bans) on commercial
drone operations is no more rational in a free society than banning commercial
applications of cars, trucks, or boats.
Yes, such
regulation of drones (licensing users, requiring insurance, limiting location
of operations, exempting certain classes, etc.) will impose hardships on some,
and will result in some mistakes (highway and boating accidents are relatively
common), for which owners, operators, insurers, or the general public will pay. Where these controls prove to be inadequate,
tort law provides additional protections to victims. But, in the case of regulation of
two-dimensional space, society views the societal benefits of such activities
to be so much greater than the costs, that few question their validity. Why should not similar means be devised to
manage three-dimensional space?
Let’s not permit
our inability to be perfect immediately keep us from getting a reasonable
start. For there are others who are
eager to capture the technology if we fail to.
