| General > General Technical Chat |
| Flying drones in the US now requires a certificate |
| << < (3/4) > >> |
| TimFox:
I read a few years ago that the Dutch were training eagles to combat drones to protect airfields, but a later article indicates that (although the eagles were reasonably good at downing drones) there were unanticipated problems with frustrated eagles going after other targets, so the project was stopped. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: TimFox on July 07, 2021, 01:05:33 am ---A sensible rule would be to require liability insurance, as with driver’s licensing in most States. --- End quote --- As with other non-licensed activities, any damage you can do in your daily, non-professional life is normally covered by your civil liability insurance. Not sure about the US, but in many other countries, it's often covered in your home insurance. So, until drones are actually licensed - which I don't think this certificate will be, at least for now and strictly speaking - any damage should be covered by civil liabilty insurances. Just like if you cause damage with a frying pan. Or any toy. Dedicated insurances could be enforced only if drones were properly licensed AND classified in clear categories. As far as I've understood - I may have not understood quite right - for now, the FAA has not classified drones in categories (please tell me if it has and I'm wrong!), which would make requiring true licensing and a dedicated liability insurance absurd IMO. Some small drones are just toys, you can't require this for a toy. Now heavier/larger/more powerful ones can be deadly weapons. This clearly should be handled in different ways. AFAIK, the EU has recently defined categories for drones. If the FAA still hasn't - which is what I got but again may be wrong - then the whole thing is clearly still not regulated properly. IMHO. But, as pickle9000, at least that will help with tracking when needed. |
| TimFox:
Again, in most US jurisdictions, liability insurance is required for operation of motor vehicles. If mandated, presumably the free market for insurance policies would give a low premium for classes of drone that are not very dangerous, and higher for the larger, more dangerous objects. In Illinois, I need to provide my insurance policy number to renew my vehicle registration (annually). However, my driver's license (longer period) is valid to operate a rental vehicle: the rental agency either provides or verifies liability insurance. The gun lobby has successfully resisted calls for mandatory liability insurance on firearms, but such coverage is readily available from insurance companies. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: TimFox on July 07, 2021, 06:35:05 pm ---Again, in most US jurisdictions, liability insurance is required for operation of motor vehicles. --- End quote --- As in most parts of the world. Because they are in a category that requires a dedicated insurance. But drones are not in this category, they just don't fit. I think you didn't read, or got my point. Drones are not in any category that would warrant a dedicated liability insurance at the moment. So until they are (and this would be linked, IMO, to them being properly licensed), there is absolutely no need for a separate insurance. Your personal civil liability insurance will do. Just, as I said, like with any toy you may be using. Or any object that doesn't require a specific license. If your civil liability insurance decides, on its own, not to cover drones, then ditch it. Now that a proper license for drones, with a requirement for a dedicated insurance, and possibly a few courses and some exam (rather that a quick online certificate), would be a good idea, yes. But as I said above, this would make sense only when drones are properly categorized. Asking for a license and specific insurance for a small toy wouldn't make sense. Now when the FAA finally defines categories for drones, and makes a difference between a 100-g toy drone and a 100-kg one, that will be another story, and we can talk about this again. This FAA certificate is probably a first step towards that goal, but there's still a lot to do. |
| TimFox:
I read your post, but I disagree with your point. Should drone damage become more common, as drone operators operate beyond line of sight (because they can, even if forbidden), the household insurance may not cover it (insurance companies like to avoid risks), and it might well be a reasonable mandate. I was using automobile liability insurance as a common instance of a similar regulation for machinery operated outside the household. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |