The Drone Regulation Debate Needs to Be Better

In 2012, when small drones, the kind that weigh just a few pounds and carry a small object (like a camera, or a burrito) became affordable, the idea of a drone-filled airspace began shifting from sci-fi fantasy to reality. But the passage toward integration was set to be turbulent.

Drones were more commonly thought of as the weaponized, ghostlike military spy aircraft that lurked over Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, killing enemy militants and, occasionally, civilians and children. While these drones have little in common with small domestic drones, the public was spooked. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union raised alarms. Fearing for privacy and safety, lawmakers from Washington state to Virginia rushed to propose legislation to limit or ban drones, even very small ones. The Federal Aviation Administration stressed, sternly, that commercial drone use would be absolutely prohibited until 2015, when it would enact comprehensive – and strict – safety regulations. The agency reminded the public that private drone users were subject to restrictions, too.

Two years later, the drones are soaring, while the efforts to limit their use have stalled and the public debate has gone into a tailspin.

In June, a company called Squadrone System started a Kickstarter campaign to fund a small multi-rotor drone called the HEXO+, which the company described as “an intelligent drone that follows and films you autonomously,” perfect for making exciting action sports videos. Within a few hours, the campaign had raised more than three times its $50,000 target. When the campaign ended, the company had raised $1.3 million.

That same week, a company called APlus Mobile made its own Kickstarter campaign. Instead of a drone, the company proposed a Personal Drone Detection System – essentially, an anti-drone radar. “Our intent is to keep your privacy safe from your neighbors and people you may not know who are flying small drones near your home or office,” it said. The campaign only managed to raise $1,435 of its $8,500 goal. It’s clear: The drone is winning.

In state legislatures, drone regulation is one of the few issues that has enjoyed bipartisan support. In 2013, according to the ACLU, 43 states debated 96 drone bills; however, all but eight of these bills died in session. This year, just four out of 36 states that considered drone legislation have enacted any laws. This is not enough to keep pace with drone proliferation.

And lawmakers in Washington aren’t jumping to regulate the drone. In fact, some have caught drone fever. Last month, Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York hired a photographer who used a drone to capture (admittedly rather stunning) aerial views of the congressman’s wedding. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who filibustered Congress for 13 hours in protest of government drone use, owns a toy drone. When he flew it on Fox News, the look on his face was childlike.

Even the FAA has been toothless. Desperate to prevent the midair meeting of a drone and a manned aircraft, the agency has released a number of policy statements intended to limit unsafe drone use. These statements include the ban on commercial use. But policy statements are not legally binding. They are recommendations, placeholders for the real, legally enforceable regulations that will come sometime after 2015. While private individuals and companies often respect federal agency policy statements, in the case of the FAA, droners, eager to get airborne, have openly flaunted them.

The FAA has attempted to enforce these policy statements through cease-and-desist letters and, in one case, a $10,000 fine. But these actions have been repeatedly struck down in court. The FAA’s attempts at enforcement have therefore only served to highlight that it has its hands tied. Meanwhile, the rules that actually are legal (like keeping away from airports) are easy to break and difficult to enforce.

At an industry level, the FAA and the droners have fallen into the all-too-familiar battle that pits regulation against the profit-efficiency motive. The drone industry, represented formally by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, is frustrated that the FAA’s foot-dragging is keeping the U.S. from launching into what will be a multibillion dollar industry. When I visited the association’s annual trade show in May, people talked about the FAA as if it was a regulatory boogeyman.

The coexistence of federal regulations and a profit-hungry industry is never a happy one. “Each day that integration is delayed will lead to $27 million in lost economic impact,” wrote Michael Toscano, the association’s president, in a letter to the FAA in January. Mathematical fuzziness aside, the argument misses a point: Well-thought-out safety regulations, especially in the air, where stakes are high, have no price. Two years ago, this battle would have been unthinkable.

When used intelligently, or by professionals, drones are safe and useful. Recently, an amateur drone pilot found his lost grandfather in just 20 minutes; the authorities had been searching for three days. But if used stupidly, drones are dangerous. Just a few days after the missing grandfather was retrieved, Cal Fire almost had to suspend operations over the Plymouth wildfires because an amateur videographer was flying a drone in the area. Just because pretty much anybody can fly a drone doesn’t mean that everybody should. The dangers of improper drone use are real.

The domestic integration of drones must not be rushed. It is naturally a challenging process, because drones present a set of complex challenges. The FAA needs time to develop an integration plan, a gargantuan task that will (and should) take several years. Safety ought to have priority over profits.

Calls for caution are not alarmism; they are legitimate. A vigorous and balanced debate in state assemblies, on Capitol Hill and in public forums is prerequisite to the development of sensible policies and norms. We are not seeing that debate. It has been squelched by the technological promise of kits like the HEXO+.

Alluring as it is, let’s not get carried away with the drone. As the technology develops more quickly and the price drops further, the safety and privacy concerns will become more pressing. We need to be careful and patient. The drone will have its day. Let’s make sure we are prepared for it when it does.