Drone-based businesses soar in Canada, as FAA grounds US entrepreneurs(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Drone-based businesses soar in Canada, as FAA grounds US entrepreneurs
https://gigaom.com/2014/09/12/drone-based-businesses-soar-in-canada-as-faa-grounds-us-entrepreneurs/
8 comments
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.
Also, Resson Aerospace is definitely mentioned in both articles.
Quentin Casey wrote a good article. So did this guy.
Actual non-Libya URL: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/07/canadian-startu...
Reminder that you can see traffic count of bitly links by adding a + to the end of the URL https://bitly.com/1m1lGdi+
43 clicks as of now (10:49PM ET).
43 clicks as of now (10:49PM ET).
Are .ly names out of favor now? Not too long ago they were de rigueur for startups.
I've actually seen these guys hustling with drones around the montreal area
The key of course is that in Canada, you need a permit to operate it. You can't just fly drones anywhere whenever you want...
Would that shit fly in the US? Needing to apply for a government permit to operate a drone? I know you all are sensitive about perceived 'freedom'. Like how we have gun control, drone permits (and thus restrictions), etc...
Would that shit fly in the US? Needing to apply for a government permit to operate a drone? I know you all are sensitive about perceived 'freedom'. Like how we have gun control, drone permits (and thus restrictions), etc...
> 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.
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.
Injury, no. But gross violations of people's privacy, yes.
It's bizarre that it's legal to fly a drone/quadcopter as a hobby, but not if you charge for the services. If there were laws about flying above a certain height or over people in well populated areas, that would make more sense than just banning commercial use.
There are going to be a lot of drone-based businesses soon. I got a DJI Phantom 2 last month and have been amazed at the quality of footage that it can capture with a GoPro. The learning curve is much easier than hand-held stabilizers I've used, like the Glidecam.
There are going to be a lot of drone-based businesses soon. I got a DJI Phantom 2 last month and have been amazed at the quality of footage that it can capture with a GoPro. The learning curve is much easier than hand-held stabilizers I've used, like the Glidecam.
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.)
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 you will drop your own safety standards for money, that isn't a problem with drones.
Where did he say he would? He said getting paid changes things for many people, and many people will take stupid risks either with their own safety or that of others if there is a paycheck in it. And I don't think one can reasonably say that isn't true.
Ive heard through a friend of a friend that CASA charges around $5K to certify a quad for flying commercially plus you need to pass your PPL theory exam.
> 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 because of that, you're advocating that all commercial drone usage be prohibited? To me, that doesn't follow.
And because of that, you're advocating that all commercial drone usage be prohibited? To me, that doesn't follow.
[deleted]
He didn't advocate that at all.
> 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 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.
Brewing beer or wine also comes to mind.
I oppose all those instances.
Cooking too? Food safety has bigger risks if you're making 10000 donuts than 1. Restricting everyone equally would put an unreasonable burden on everyday life. Scale is a big reason why there's a difference. Unrestricted commercial drone flights would be much more common than hobby, and would therefore cause much more accidents.
Scale is completely separate from the legal ban of commercial drone operations. I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun. I cannot legally charge $5 to take extremely low quality photos of a field with a 20 gram.
> Scale is completely separate from the legal ban of commercial drone operations.
Its actually not. While the limit on commercial application doesn't directly limit scale, there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes.
One can argue that prohibiting commercial use isn't the most desirable way to influence overall scale, but one cannot -- without willful blindness -- argue that banning commercial use has no impact on expected overall scale, even if it does nothing to directly limit either overall scale or the scale of any particular operation.
> I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun.
Yes, but how many people will vs. how many will when they can do it for fun or profit?
Its actually not. While the limit on commercial application doesn't directly limit scale, there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes.
One can argue that prohibiting commercial use isn't the most desirable way to influence overall scale, but one cannot -- without willful blindness -- argue that banning commercial use has no impact on expected overall scale, even if it does nothing to directly limit either overall scale or the scale of any particular operation.
> I can legally build a dozen quadcopters with 26" propellers and set them flying formations for fun.
Yes, but how many people will vs. how many will when they can do it for fun or profit?
> there is a very big difference in the overall expected scale when something can only be done for personal enjoyment vs. when it can be both done for that and for commercial purposes.
That only serves as an argument for regulating large scale drone operations (commercial or not). It doesn't work as an argument for prohibiting all commercial drone operations regardless of scale.
That only serves as an argument for regulating large scale drone operations (commercial or not). It doesn't work as an argument for prohibiting all commercial drone operations regardless of scale.
Its not about the scale of an individual drone operation, its about the aggregate scale of all drone operations when commercial operations are allowed vs. when they are not.
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.)
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.)
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 had me at "tacocopter".
[deleted]
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.
Request: Please don't come and ruin it for the rest of us, like this irresponsible american drone operator potentially did (thankfully there have been no repercussions yet as the authorities haven't seen it).
See the first few seconds of this video: http://vimeo.com/99295619
Flying anywhere near aerodromes is illegal just about everywhere.
See the first few seconds of this video: http://vimeo.com/99295619
Flying anywhere near aerodromes is illegal just about everywhere.
"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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.
This is an american photographer/videographer coming to Fiji for a project (work), who then ignores local law by flying his quadcopter over a moving aircraft on a runway.
He finishes his project after a few days, returns to his home country, and puts his video online. If seen by civil aviation authorities in Fiji, it could lead to tighter regulations for local hobbyists and drone businesses.
This is an american photographer/videographer coming to Fiji for a project (work), who then ignores local law by flying his quadcopter over a moving aircraft on a runway.
He finishes his project after a few days, returns to his home country, and puts his video online. If seen by civil aviation authorities in Fiji, it could lead to tighter regulations for local hobbyists and drone businesses.
Are you familiar with the local law in Fiji?
Yes.
- Every UAV must be registered with (licensed by) the civil aviation authority
- Cannot operate within six kilometres of an international aerodrome and within three kilometres of a domestic airport
- Every UAV must be registered with (licensed by) the civil aviation authority
- Cannot operate within six kilometres of an international aerodrome and within three kilometres of a domestic airport
Thank you.
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.
No intrigue.
It's a great video. Beautifully shot. I love it.
I'm just annoyed that the guy who made it broke the law in doing so.
The video is online, so if it ever comes to the attention of the Fiji Civil Aviation Authority, they could come down hard on local (fijian) UAV operators and hobbyists.
It's a great video. Beautifully shot. I love it.
I'm just annoyed that the guy who made it broke the law in doing so.
The video is online, so if it ever comes to the attention of the Fiji Civil Aviation Authority, they could come down hard on local (fijian) UAV operators and hobbyists.
How do you know he broke the law?
Good. I've seen people cut by those drones and it isn't pretty. The manufacturers should have put safety cages around each prop, even if it cut into performance. But since they don't, I think they should be banned.
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.
I still feel like safety cages and banning drones are not the solution. Proper training and respecting the tool are much more effective.
Hopefully they can work out the kinks under the US is ready to adopt it.
and how about privacy, sc* that right
I am the co-founder of fluttrbox(applied YC W15)